BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

New Writ

Ordered,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Newark in the room of Patrick Mercer, who since his election for the said County Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—(Sir George Young.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

Rural Broadband

Michael Fabricant: What progress has been made on the delivery of broadband in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

Sajid Javid: The Government’s broadband programme will increase superfast broadband coverage to 95% of UK premises by 2017. The programme has already delivered superfast broadband to more than 500,000 premises. A further 20,000 premises are gaining availability per week and that number is set to rise to 40,000 per week by the summer.

Michael Fabricant: Who would have thought just a month ago, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) and I were sharing a drink at Birmingham City university, that he would be where he is now? I congratulate him on his appointment on behalf, I am sure, of both sides of the House.
	My right hon. Friend talks about superfast broadband and there has been huge progress, but I am afraid that there are still large areas of the country where there is no broadband at all—the not spots. When will broadband coverage be as universal as electricity supplies?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for that warm welcome. I remember that drink well. He mentioned my constituency of Bromsgrove. Like his constituency, it is
	semi-rural and there is naturally concern among my constituents about broadband coverage. He will therefore be pleased to know that the Government are providing £780 million of central funding to support superfast broadband, so that 95% of UK premises can enjoy it by 2017. We have also launched a £10 million fund to explore with suppliers broadband solutions for the other 5%.

Helen Goodman: I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on his appointment. We hope that he enjoys the next year in his job. This might be the first time that he has answered questions on broadband roll-out, but so great is the concern across the House that this is the 494th time that such questions have been asked. This week, we learned that no one in Oxfordshire has applied for the vouchers under the lacklustre £150-million super-connected cities programme. Why does he not adopt our proposal of switching half of those funds into helping the 15 million people who are digitally excluded?

Sajid Javid: Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome. We looked at the previous Government’s proposals. The reason we changed the policy was that, frankly, it was not working. Already under this Government, superfast broadband coverage has risen from about 45% when we came to office to 73%. The UK has better coverage than the other EU5 countries. I hope that she will join us in implementing these policies.

Therese Coffey: The broadband programme in Suffolk is going rather well, but to reach the 95% figure and cover places such as Wangford and Yoxford, we need a bit more money from the Government. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) will welcome our representations.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is passionate about this issue and has brought it up a number of times. I would be happy to meet her to discuss it further and to see how we can better use the existing resources that are available.

Simon Hart: Although the roll-out of broadband to rural areas is going at some pace, it is going rather slowly in parts of rural Wales. I wonder whether the Secretary of State is happy with the manner in which the Welsh Assembly is doing this and whether it is meeting his expectations for the whole of the UK.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Well over 100,000 premises in Wales have been connected to superfast broadband under this Government, but obviously there is a need to do more. I am keen to consider ways in which we can make the process quicker.

David Heath: I also welcome the Secretary of State to his new post.
	The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), was in my constituency a couple of weeks ago and may have heard one or two things from my constituents about the hard-to-reach rural areas where broadband will be difficult to install. Will
	he look again at the requirement for match funding for very rural areas? Quite simply it will not work, by definition, in areas where there are very few people.

Sajid Javid: I can tell my hon. Friend that the rural broadband programme is making good progress. I accept that it is patchy in certain parts of the country, but a number of projects have gone live as the roll-out has begun. I will examine the issue that he raises, but the current evidence shows the rate of connectivity rising and suggests that the match funding programme is progressing well.

Julian Smith: We are grateful for the Government funding for superfast broadband in North Yorkshire, and we are well on the way to getting high penetration across the country. One way in which we can reach our most remote areas is through technology, and BT has a new, smaller fibre box, but it needs special regulatory approval. What can the Secretary of State do to help us move that process on so that we can deliver to our most remote areas?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend rightly highlights the significant role that BT plays as a huge stakeholder in rolling out superfast broadband around the country. I have already had a meeting with BT in my new role, and I look forward to having further meetings to see how the process can be taken forward.

Press Conduct

Ben Bradshaw: If he will meet alleged victims of unethical and unlawful conduct by the press to discuss how to prevent such conduct in the future.

Sajid Javid: I support freedom of the press while wanting to ensure that redress is available when mistakes are made, and I will welcome representations from a range of stakeholders who have an interest in the matter. My meetings will, of course, be a matter of public record through the Cabinet Office in the usual way.

Ben Bradshaw: I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new job. I think it is probably the best job in government, and I hope he enjoys it.
	I was not quite sure from the right hon. Gentleman’s answer whether he will meet victims. I hope he will, because as he will be aware, they are not happy with what has happened since the Leveson report and they are certainly not happy with attempts by some newspapers to set up a replacement for the discredited Press Complaints Commission. Does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said on oath to the Leveson inquiry that the test is
	“not: do the politicians or the press feel happy with what we get? It’s: are we really protecting people who have been caught up and absolutely thrown to the wolves by this process”?

Sajid Javid: I know that the right hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, and I am sure he recognises that since Lord Leveson’s report was published, we have made significant progress on the issue on a
	cross-party basis. As he knows, the royal charter has now been granted, and it is now for the press to decide what they wish to do next.
	On the issue of meeting alleged victims, if they were to make a formal request, I would give it serious consideration.

Paul Uppal: I confess that, like many Members, I am occasionally a political anorak and watch political campaigns. Over the past few weeks I have watched the Indian elections, and particularly the media coverage over there. May I impress upon my right hon. Friend the point that although the British press is far from perfect, we have to be mindful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I have said before, a number of industries have bad apples and make mistakes, but we must recognise that the freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our democracy.

Chris Bryant: But it was not just one bad apple, was it? It was not one rogue reporter, it was systematic abuse of people who were the victims of crime themselves or had lost family members in Afghanistan. I hope the Secretary of State will understand that those victims of crimes and unethical conduct are deeply troubled by the creation of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, because it has been cobbled together by two Conservative Members of the House of Lords and is still a case of the press marking their own homework.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that the industry and the Government agree, as I believe do all parties in this House, that self-regulation is the way forward. That was at the heart of the Leveson principles. As I said, the royal charter has been granted and the press have responded by setting up a self-regulator, and it is now for them to decide how they wish to take that further.

Gambling: Social Media Sites

Nia Griffith: What steps he plans to take to reduce simulated gambling on social media sites.

Helen Grant: The Government are aware of concerns about gambling-like activities on social media. The Gambling Commission has published a review of existing evidence and is working with all relevant bodies to analyse data and assess any relevant risk.

Nia Griffith: Will the Minister tell the House how she will ensure that no promotion of online gambling is targeted at young people using simulated gambling sites? Clearly, those people are already very vulnerable, and the temptation for real gambling to be advertised to those young people is immense. How will she ensure that that does not happen?

Helen Grant: Of course, the remote gambling Bill that will be presented later this year will do an awful lot to deal with any abuse coming from online gambling. The risks of social gaming fall into two categories: consumer
	exploitation and problem gambling. The Gambling Commission is looking at both, and I am happy to speak to it and to take advice on the specific issue that the hon. Lady has brought to my attention.

Tony Baldry: Am I right in thinking that the mischief of which the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) complains about deregulating gambling was introduced by the previous Labour Government in their Gambling Act 2005?

Helen Grant: My right hon. Friend makes a good point, and we have spent a considerable amount of time unravelling a lot of the work that Labour Members did over the past 13 years—so much so that I was happy to present a set of proposals and a package of reforms yesterday.

Online Gambling

Ann McKechin: What assessment he has made of the effect of online gambling on vulnerable adults with a gambling addiction.

Helen Grant: Problem gamblers tend to participate in a wide range of gambling rather than one particular form. The Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill will allow consistent consumer protection for all British-based users of online gambling products.

Ann McKechin: I welcome the fact that the Government have now agreed to put in place a one-stop shop system for self-exclusion. Will the Minister confirm when she expects that system to be put in place to protect gamblers?

Helen Grant: I expect it to be put in place within the next six months.

Philip Davies: Will the Minister explain the conflict between all this concern now about problem gambling online, and the nanny state regulations that she introduced yesterday—egged on by the Labour party—on fixed odds betting terminals, which will only lead to people moving their gambling from a controlled environment in betting shops to similar games and machines with unlimited stakes and prizes on the internet? Surely the proposals she put forward yesterday will only make online gambling problems worse.

Helen Grant: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The proposals put forward yesterday were a very sensible response from a responsible Government who want to assist local communities and protect highly vulnerable people. I believe that nothing more nor less would have been appropriate.

Clive Efford: Yesterday, the Minister carried out a U-turn on online gambling and FOBT machines. She has accepted our call for councils to be given planning powers to restrict the clustering of betting shops, but she has done nothing for those who want to respond to local concerns about the numbers of FOBT machines they already have. We welcome the fact that after more than two years of refusing to act, the
	Government have finally accepted our proposals. She also announced a £50 limit on stakes on FOBT machines, which she relies on the betting industry to impose. What evidence has she seen that convinces her that a £50 limit will deal with problem gambling? She is aware of research being conducted by NatCen. If that says that the £50 limit should be lowered, will she act?

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman raises a lot of issues and I will do my best to deal with them in the time available. The measures will certainly put an end to unsupervised easy cash-based staking above £50, allowing continued use of machines while ensuring greater opportunities for supervision and protection. The measures are targeted, reasonable and proportionate, and completely justified on a precautionary basis. We have made no change to the stake and prize. The U-turn is absolute nonsense. The shadow Minister knows that I have declared continually that there is no green light for FOBTs, and our package of reforms has been carefully considered. In my opinion, our proposals are targeted and proportionate; his proposals were knee-jerk and impractical.

David Burrowes: I invite the Minister to take no lessons from the Opposition who are just opportunistic about FOBTs—in 2000 there were none, but in 2010 there was an explosion of 30,000 FOBT machines. The packages yesterday to protect communities are welcome in my constituency, which has seen a saturation-level of FOBTs, particularly in Palmers Green. Will she also consider the introduction of a cumulative impact test for licence applications? Is it part of the package? That would assist communities that want to take back control of this issue.

Helen Grant: I know that my hon. Friend has considerable concerns about FOBTs, not just in his constituency but around the country. We will see strengthened play protections that will help to deal with the risks of FOBTs, wider self-exclusion and more intervention. I am happy to have a chat with him about the issue of impact assessments that he has raised.

Rugby World Cup Tickets

Sharon Hodgson: What steps he is taking to prevent tickets for the 2015 Rugby World Cup being purchased by organised syndicates of touts.

Sajid Javid: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the members of the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse for the important work they have done on this issue. However, while I am aware of the concerns of the rugby world cup organisers, there is no evidence to suggest that introducing legislation to prohibit ticket touting is needed to deliver a successful event this year.

Sharon Hodgson: I know that the Secretary of State has his own opinions on this issue, but he will no doubt have heard this question being answered in the same way month after month. The Government seem to think that there will not be a problem, but if they bothered to look online, they would see that there already is a problem. Thousands of tickets for the rugby world cup are already for sale online at many times face value. If
	the Secretary of State will not accept the Opposition Front Bench’s offer of co-operation in banning the unauthorised resale of tickets, will he at least accept the recommendation of the all-party group on ticket abuse that calls for greater transparency and adequate protection for consumers?

Sajid Javid: I know that the hon. Lady is very passionate about this issue and I commend her for her leadership, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), of the APPG on ticket abuse. She will know that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee looked at this issue in 2008, as did the previous Government in 2009. I agree with their broad conclusion that there is no need for further legislative action. However, I would be more than happy to sit down with the hon. Lady and discuss her concerns further.

Football Clubs: Finance

Jesse Norman: What steps he is taking to help football clubs in financial difficulty.

Helen Grant: I continue to work closely with the football authorities to press for improvements in governance. They have made some good progress, notably putting clubs on a much stronger financial footing through the introduction of the financial fair play rules.

Jesse Norman: I thank the Minister for that reply and I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new job, to which he is bringing his characteristic freshness and intelligence.
	Last Saturday, Hereford United won their do-or-die relegation battle to stay in the conference premier league despite extremely difficult financial circumstances. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Bulls players and staff, and in recognising the massive role played by the club’s supporters in sustaining the club? Does she share my view that all the football authorities need to get together now and look at what more they can do to preserve our football heritage and support clubs in the lower leagues?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) is not in his place, so I can congratulate the Bulls on their win over Alfreton. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who has worked tirelessly to help Hereford United, which has had a difficult time recently. Running a football club is a challenging matter and supporter trusts play a crucial role in that regard. I will follow the Hereford United Supporters Trust bid for the club with eager interest.

David Hanson: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to ensure financial security is to get football supporters involved in clubs? Some three years ago the Culture, Media and Sport Committee recommended a working group be set up to look at the issue and the Government agreed. The Government are now in Fergie time on this, so is it not time that the working group was set up?

Helen Grant: The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point latterly. The setting up of the expert group is one of my priorities, and I am determined to see it established. The support of fans is crucial and I expect the group to meet for the first time in the coming weeks.

Philip Hollobone: Kettering Town football club has scored more goals in the lifetime of the FA cup competition than any other club in the country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Despite this distinguished record, in recent years it has had far more than its fair share of financial difficulties and is now in the very minor leagues. There is a feeling among constituents that there is far too much money in the Premier League, with overpaid footballers getting ridiculous salaries and not enough money going into football at the grass roots.

Helen Grant: I take on board what my hon. Friend says. We have to look after all our football clubs. Financial issues are critical and the football authorities have made significant changes in recent years, introducing an early-warning system for tax debts, salary caps and, as I mentioned, the financial fair play rules. Those changes are helping clubs across the piece to stay on a stronger financial footing.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I know the Minister and the whole House will want to take the opportunity to wish Ballymena United all the very best on Saturday in the Irish cup. Does the Minister plan to visit Northern Ireland and meet the Irish Football Association to see what assistance, development and help she can give to the IFA in the development of the beautiful game in Northern Ireland?

Helen Grant: That is an offer I would find very difficult to refuse. I wish Ballymena United well in their cup match and I will certainly look at my diary to see whether we can work in a visit to the hon. Gentleman’s wonderful constituency.

First World War Commemorations

Sheryll Murray: What steps he is taking to ensure that a cultural programme forms part of the first world war commemorations.

Pauline Latham: What steps he is taking to ensure that a cultural programme forms part of the first world war commemorations.

Sajid Javid: Culture has always been absolutely central to how we understand and try to make sense of the first world war and, in the same way, it will be central to the centenary commemorations. The 14-18 NOW programme will deliver a UK-wide programme of cultural events in 2014, 2016 and 2018. It will inspire people of all ages, and from all backgrounds, to take part in the centenary.

Sheryll Murray: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my local museums in Saltash and Liskeard, which provide boxes for schools to enhance the cultural
	experience of young people, so that they can better understand what happened in world war one? I recommend that he visit the excellent display in Saltash on the Suffragette movement, a campaign important both at the time and for women like me today. Does he agree that adequate funding must be provided to help museums progress with such wonderful initiatives, lest we forget?

Sajid Javid: Local cultural institutions have a key role to play in the first world war centenary commemorations. I am delighted to hear about the contribution from Saltash. As my hon. Friend says, it reminds us of the vital contribution that women made during the war. I will certainly be interested in a visit.

Pauline Latham: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and wish him well. Can he reassure me that this cultural programme will be truly UK-wide, with a chance for people in all parts of the country to join in?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I can reassure her that the 14-18 NOW summer 2014 season will be truly UK-wide, with events across the country for all people to take part in. The ambition is to reach at least 10 million people over the four years of the cultural programme.

Dan Jarvis: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post. I look forward to working with him and with those on my Front Bench in the coming months to ensure that we deliver a fitting commemoration. It is of course right that we focus on the service and sacrifice of those who lost their lives on the front line, but we should also ensure that we recognise the contribution of men and women on the home front who toiled in the mines and the factories, worked the land and cared for the wounded. Will the Secretary of State say how we can ensure that their voices are heard?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for the support he has given to the centenary commemorations—I really welcome that cross-party support. He raises a very important point. It is important to ensure that the efforts on the home front are properly commemorated, and I am happy to discuss that with him further if he thinks we can do more.

Sports-related Tourism

Mark Pawsey: What assessment he has made of the potential benefits of encouraging sports-related tourism.

Helen Grant: The United Kingdom is hosting a series of major sporting events between now and 2019. VisitEngland is working closely with the organisers of the Tour de France and the Rugby world cup 2015 to maximise the potential benefits, which could be considerable.

Mark Pawsey: The Minister mentioned the Rugby world cup, which is now just 500 days away. Will she join me in congratulating the 13 cities which will host the matches, and which are creating additional attractions for the Rugby fans throughout the world who will want
	to visit the birthplace of the game, where it all started in 1834 when William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran?

Helen Grant: I am delighted to congratulate the 13 host cities. My hon. Friend’s constituency, with its unique link to the birthplace of Rugby, has an excellent opportunity to benefit from next year’s tournament.

Catherine McKinnell: Tourism is a growth industry in the north-east, supporting 18,000 jobs in an area that still suffers from the highest levels of unemployment in the country. What is the Minister doing to support tourism in areas such as the north-east in the light of the forthcoming major sporting events, given that such events provide an excellent opportunity for its promotion?

Helen Grant: I grew up in an area close to the north-east, and I know how fabulous it is. We have an excellent domestic tourism package, and VisitEngland has launched two brilliant “holidays at home” campaigns, which have generated millions of pounds of incremental spending. I hope that the hon. Lady’s constituency will benefit from that.

Richard Fuller: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on American football—and I declare my interest in that regard—I can tell the House that when it comes to sport-related tourism, I know of no sport that has the same potential. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the National Football League on hosting three American football games at Wembley this year, and will she welcome the visitors who will come to support the Miami Dolphins, the Oakland Raiders, the Detroit Lions, the Atlanta Falcons, the Dallas Cowboys and the Jacksonville Jaguars?

Helen Grant: I probably just need to say yes to all that—and many congratulations to all concerned.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister rightly mentioned the Tour de France, but will she also note the fact that the opening stages of the Giro d’Italia cycling race will take place in Northern Ireland next week? That is important in the context not only of world cycling, but of the Northern Ireland Executive’s efforts to bring major sporting events to Northern Ireland, thus greatly increasing the tourism potential of the Province.

Helen Grant: I think it is fabulous that that event is to take place in Northern Ireland. Such events have huge benefits, not just for tourism but for the economy, and they are also a real inspiration when it comes to persuading people to take part in sport.

Reallocation of Television Spectrum: BBC Three

Michael Connarty: What recent discussions he has had with Digital UK and Ofcom on the re-allocation of the television spectrum to be vacated by BBC Three.

Edward Vaizey: The BBC Trust is currently considering the proposal to stop broadcasting
	BBC Three. I have not yet discussed what may happen to BBC Three’s Freeview channel number with either Digital UK or Ofcom.

Michael Connarty: I know that the Minister is very conscious of the concern felt by people in Scotland about Scottish Television’s proposals to introduce local television. Is it not a problem—I have spoken to Ofcom about this—that the BBC seems to think that it can keep the BBC Three channel and invent BBC One plus one, even though it is currently failing to use the channel properly? Is it not important for the BBC not to have a monopoly, and for the channel to be available to other public broadcasters?

Edward Vaizey: I know that the hon. Gentleman met Ofcom this week, and that he has raised this subject in the House and led a debate on it. The BBC Trust will make the final decision on whether the BBC Three channel should go to an online service, but I understand that Digital UK will allocate the channel in the normal way, taking account of the due prominence rules in the public service broadcasting guidelines. However, I have noted the hon. Gentleman’s point, and will follow it up.

Martin Vickers: It is two years since Digital UK completed the changeover from analogue and a large number of households were persuaded to buy Freeview boxes. There have been reports that Freeview is now under threat. Given that many households in my constituency rely on it rather than on cable and satellite, which are more expensive, can the Minister assure them that Freeview will continue?

Edward Vaizey: I was pleased to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see how well local television is doing in his part of the world. I can assure him that Freeview and free-to-air television is very important, and the Government will continue to support it.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Graham Jones: What recent discussions he has had with gambling addiction charities on funding for research into fixed odds betting terminals.

Helen Grant: I regularly meet groups and individuals interested in gambling. Earlier this year I chaired a meeting of faith groups, care providers and campaign groups to discuss issues of concern.

Graham Jones: It is apt that the Secretary of State has moved from the Treasury to the DCMS, and I congratulate him on his promotion. How much of the £90 million that will be raised from the increase from 20% to 25% in the levy on FOBTs will be given to GamCare?

Helen Grant: Taxation matters are always for the Chancellor to respond to, but I have met representatives of GamCare and I intend to visit its premises in Clapham shortly before the recess. I acknowledge the excellent work they do in looking after problem gamblers.

David Nuttall: Can the Minister explain what impact assessment was made of how many small and independent betting shops will close and how many jobs will be lost as a result of the measures she announced yesterday, coming on top of the increase in tax announced in the Budget?

Helen Grant: As I have said previously, these are sensible measures taken by a responsive Government and they will assist local communities and protect vulnerable people. They are balanced, proportionate and have business in mind too. Nothing more or less would have been appropriate.

Topical Questions

Debbie Abrahams: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: It is a pleasure to join you for my first oral questions as Secretary of State, Mr Speaker. The Department continues its work in a large number of areas, including but not limited to extending sporting and cultural opportunities to as many people as possible, promoting the creative industries, encouraging both international and domestic tourism and delivering a transformation of broadband.

Debbie Abrahams: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. We know of the multiple benefits of sport in all its forms, but particularly of the social and health benefits. However, a recent survey by the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation found that more than half of girls are put off physical activity as a result of their experiences in school. I appreciate that measures are already in place to provide support, but what more will the Secretary of State commit to doing to increase women’s participation—or is support for women something that an increasingly male-dominated Cabinet does not like to provide?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady has asked questions about this issue before and I know she is passionate about it. She has made an important point, and it is a shame that she had to finish with party political point scoring on what is a very important issue. She will be aware that the Government have taken a number of initiatives in this area already, and despite her attempt to make a petty point at the end, I will be happy to meet her if she wants to discuss any ideas she has about what more we can do in this important area.

Andrew Bingham: I am sure that the Minister will be interested to read the forthcoming report from the RadioCentre, called “Action Stations”, on the output and impact of commercial radio. I am proud that my local commercial radio station, High Peak Radio, is in the report, which also outlines the economic benefits of commercial radio: every £1 invested yields £8 for the advertisers. The report will be officially launched on 13 May and I am sure the Minister will study its findings, but does he agree that commercial radio plays a significant role not just in the country’s economy but in supporting communities such as mine in High Peak?

Edward Vaizey: Commercial radio is vitally important both locally and nationally. Some 35 million people listen to commercial radio every week, and UK radio revenues continue to increase. We have seen the launch of the first national talk radio station, LBC, and digital radio is vital to commercial radio’s future. I know that the Secretary of State is keen to meet commercial radio operators as soon as possible.

Harriet Harman: I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) on his promotion. His elevation to a seat at the Cabinet table sends out a strong signal that in this country, our politics must be for people from all communities, all ethnicities and all walks of life, and I wish him well in his job.
	As the right hon. Gentleman takes over leadership of this important Department, we will be urging him to fight hard for the arts and to promote the crucial role that the BBC plays in the cultural life of this country. I want to ask him about young people and music. Creativity is being squeezed out of the curriculum; fewer pupils are taking music at GCSE and A-level; music services have been cut by almost 30%; and now the Department for Education wants to cut a further 12% of music resources available to schools through the education services grant. Will he intervene with the Education Secretary and make the case for music in schools?

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her warm welcome. The work that she did when in government, especially on equalities, has had a lasting impact and I welcome much of it. Music and arts in schools are important, and I have already had a discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on that issue. Action that we have already taken, such as ring-fencing funding for music in schools, is very helpful, but I want to see whether there is more we can do.

Simon Hart: Mobile phone coverage in parts of Wales is as bad as coverage in places in Africa, Kazakhstan and the Alps. Does the Minister have a view on when we can expect a 20th-century service in Wales, let alone a 21st-century one?

Edward Vaizey: I am pleased to say that a 21st-century service is well on its way. We have the greatest roll-out of 4G technology anywhere in the world and the major mobile providers will complete their 4G mobile coverage two years ahead of schedule. We will then take a look at how effective that is and we will continue to work with mobile operators to improve mobile coverage.

Mark Lazarowicz: What is the Government’s current position on net neutrality, particularly given recent discussions and decisions in both Europe and the United States?

Edward Vaizey: I like to think that we were ahead of the curve in putting together a code of conduct, to which the major internet service providers and mobile phone companies have subscribed, under which they agreed that they would not block traffic for anti-competitive
	reasons. Obviously, we are carefully examining the telecoms package that the European Commission has proposed, which includes a potential regulation on net neutrality.

Pauline Latham: Between 18 April and 31 May, Belper, a town in my constituency, is holding its annual arts festival, throughout which 179 events in 99 different venues will be drawing in the region of 16,000 visitors to the local area. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Belper, led by volunteer George Gunby, and other towns and villages that are holding similar events? What is the Minister doing to support such initiatives?

Edward Vaizey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the amazing work she does to promote Derbyshire in this House, She has so effectively led the Derbyshire embassy, which I was delighted to attend. The Belper arts festival is putting together a fantastic and enticing programme. I am also pleased to see that the Arts Council is supporting the Red Earth theatre in Belper, the Buxton arts festival and the Wirksworth festival in Derbyshire.

Sharon Hodgson: I am sorry that the sports Minister, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) and indeed the Secretary of State were not able to attend the all-party group on basketball event yesterday on Speaker’s Green, where Opposition Members were able to out-dunk Government Members by 56 to 33. The Minister will, however, be aware of the deep concern across the House about the future of our national basketball teams after UK Sport withdraw all their elite-level funding. What consideration has she given to providing elite-level development funding for accessible team sports such as basketball which fall foul of the no-compromise model of UK sport?

Helen Grant: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and I am sorry that I could not attend the event—I wanted to but I had a clash. I believe a Conservative won the event, and that is always welcome. As she well knows, sports governing bodies, including that for basketball, have received large amounts of public money—taxpayers’ money. It is certainly no gravy train and if sports cannot deliver increasing participation, it is absolutely right that the money should be diverted to those that can do so. I do not believe that doors are ever closed for ever and I would be happy to have a chat with her about the proposal she makes.

Charlie Elphicke: Many private sector companies are big supporters of the arts in Britain. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how important he believes that support to be?

Sajid Javid: As usual, my hon. Friend raises an important point. Support from the corporate sector for the cultural sector is very important. It amounted to around £110 million last year, almost a fifth of total investment. In the past couple of weeks, I have been to the Globe, which is supported by Deutsche Bank, and the Matisse exhibition at Tate Modern, which is supported and sponsored by Bank of America. Just yesterday I went to the Vikings exhibition at the British Museum, which is
	supported by BP. It was held in a new exhibition hall, which received the majority of its funding from the Sainsbury family.

Julie Hilling: Lowton girls group came to talk to me about its concerns that music videos portraying sex and violence are being watched by children and young people. Why will the Government not legislate for age ratings for music videos online?

Edward Vaizey: Parents tell us that they want age ratings on music videos that are unsuitable for younger children. We consulted on legislation to introduce the British Board of Film Classification age ratings for music DVDs. We will introduce legislation to Parliament within the coming months, and we will bring into force new age rating requirements as soon as possible. I am also working with the music industry to get age ratings for online music videos as well.

Tobias Ellwood: I join others in welcoming my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to his new position and invite him to visit Bournemouth, the UK’s premier seaside resort, at the end of this month when it is organising its first free wheels festival, which will include historic classical cars, monster trucks and supercar demonstrations on the sea front. Does that not illustrate how the experience offered to visitors is just as important as good accommodation and a picturesque location?

Helen Grant: The Secretary of State has just whispered to me that he really does look forward to visiting Bournemouth, and I am, on his behalf, happy to congratulate Bournemouth council on organising this wheels festival. I am sure that this free-to-visit family event will attract visitors over the Whitsun bank holiday weekend, boosting the local economy and raising the town’s very special profile.

Diana Johnson: People whose homes and businesses were recently flooded will know, as we did in Hull in 2007, of the benefit of having local BBC radio stations. Those radio stations are often seen as the extra emergency service in times of crisis. Will the Minister confirm that, in any future negotiations on funding for the BBC, protection is given to local radio services?

Edward Vaizey: Absolutely. I echo what the hon. Lady says. During the severe floods in Oxfordshire in 2007, BBC Radio Oxford certainly played an invaluable role. I can assure her that the value of all BBC services, including local and regional services, will be considered as part of the review of the BBC’s charter. We have not yet announced the timing, scope and process of the charter review, so it would be premature of me to say anything further at this point.

Neil Parish: May I also add my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his appointment? The Blackdown hills and villages such as Upottery, Clayhidon and Rousdon are finding it difficult to get broadband. We welcome the Government’s money, but BT is finding things difficult and there is secrecy about where the broadband will be delivered throughout the constituency. Will the Secretary of State
	meet me and local representatives to discuss the way in which we can roll out this broadband in a much better way?

Edward Vaizey: Absolutely. It is important to point out that the progress of rural broadband is really picking up pace, with 20,000 homes passed every week, but we must get out the information to local residents. I am sure that the Secretary of State will meet my hon. Friend at the earliest opportunity to discuss his points.

Ian Lavery: When imposing the changes to the betting and gaming industry, did the Government consider conducting an impact assessment on the potential job losses? Before yesterday, William Hill had already announced 109 betting shop closures, with the loss of 420 jobs, which mainly affect young women between the ages of 18 and 24.

Helen Grant: We are of course always mindful of jobs, not just for women but for everyone. The package I announced yesterday was sensible and proportionate and it deals with a number of concerns about powers for local authorities, controls for the community and the importance of protecting highly vulnerable people. We have acted where it has been needed, which is more than the Labour party did during its 13 years in power.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Ministers for Women and for Equalities were asked—

Violence Against Women

Pauline Latham: What recent discussions she has had with the Home Secretary on reducing levels of violence against women.

Nicky Morgan: The Ministers for Women and for Equalities attend the quarterly Home Office inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls and are committed to supporting the Government action plan, published on 8 March, to end violence against women and girls. The Government have taken recent key actions such as rolling out the domestic violence disclosure scheme and domestic violence protection orders, and we commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s review into domestic abuse and have announced steps to ensure the recommendations are acted on. I highlighted the action plan when the Minister for Equalities and I gave a presentation to Cabinet this Tuesday on policy issues of particular relevance to women.

Pauline Latham: I welcome the Minister to her new position, which is well deserved. How will she, in her new role as Minister for Women, support the Government’s commitment to end violence against women and girls?

Nicky Morgan: I know that my hon. Friend is a dedicated campaigner in this area. The Government recognise that violence against women and girls is strongly linked to gender inequality. Our action plan sets out
	work to raise the aspirations and ambitions of women and girls and the Government are also taking strong action to support women’s economic empowerment and making lasting changes to ensure that our workplaces match the needs of women in modern Britain, including by extending the right to flexible working, increasing child tax credits and extending the free entitlement to early education.

Barbara Keeley: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role. Two women a week in England and Wales are killed by a current or former partner and in my constituency we have had two violent murders of women in just eight months. Both of the women were in their 20s with a young child or children. Women’s Aid has warned that cuts to services mean that women and children are likely to remain in abusive situations or are more likely to return after they have left. Is it not time for the Government to accept Labour’s idea of an independent commissioner on domestic and sexual violence to champion victims such as those in my constituency and to drive improvement?

Nicky Morgan: This is an incredibly serious issue and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have dealt with tragic cases of women who have been put at risk of violence or who have suffered violence at the hands of their partner or someone close to them. Protective injunctions remain within the scope of legal aid, and immigration cases in which domestic violence is a factor continue to qualify for funding. We have also recently scrapped the application fee for those injunctions to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers between people and the help they need, and we have said that if there are any other areas in which legal aid is not being made available, we want to be made aware of them. I am happy to look again at the issues that the hon. Lady has raised.

Angela Watkinson: Most police officers are sympathetic and helpful when women report incidents of domestic violence, but sadly some still have a negative attitude. What more does my hon. Friend think can be done to ensure that police responses are consistent, which is particularly important for women reporting serial offences?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are many excellent police officers up and down the country who respond incredibly sympathetically and supportively to those who make complaints or allegations of violence. It is important that victims of sexual abuse feel empowered to come forward to report that abuse and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and all Ministers across Government would like to encourage people to do that and to encourage the police to take all allegations seriously. If there is anything further we should be doing, I am happy to look into it.

Gloria De Piero: I welcome both Ministers to their new roles. We have the new Minister for Equalities, and it is always good to see people from ordinary backgrounds at the top table of politics, and the new Minister for Women, and it is a pleasure to shadow another woman from the east midlands in this role.
	Violence against women is one of the many examples of how women’s equality cuts across all Departments. In fact, all Government decisions are relevant to women, so will the Minister for Women be attending all Cabinet meetings?

Nicky Morgan: Yes.

Women’s Sport: Media Coverage

Simon Burns: What progress the Government Equalities Office has made on encouraging improved media coverage of women’s sport.

Helen Grant: We have seen some progress from the media, and especially from broadcasters, in this area. The top-quality coverage of our inspirational women in Sochi was absolutely tremendous, but of course more needs to be done.

Simon Burns: I thank the Minister for that response. Has she had time to reflect on the links between media coverage and sponsorship, and does she not find it extraordinary, in the 21st century, that sponsorship of women’s sport pales into insignificance when compared with that of men’s sport?

Helen Grant: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is quite right that the level of women’s sport sponsorship deals is very low indeed, compared with all deals; it is at about 2%. Having top-level women’s sports events covered in the media will of course encourage companies to get involved. I congratulate Helena Morrissey and her company, Newton, on their smart decision to sponsor the women’s boat race.

Ann McKechin: Glasgow’s Commonwealth games will be a marvellous opportunity to highlight excellence in women’s sport, but regrettably, regional TV and radio coverage of women’s sport is woeful in this country. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether she has made any representations to public service providers and commercial radio about the need for women’s sport to be covered in much more volume and detail.

Helen Grant: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Women’s sport is one of my priorities, and visibility and coverage of women is key to so many things, including sponsorship. We have had a number of meetings with the media and print magazines. Sky and the BBC have certainly upped their game since the 2012 Olympics, through more coverage and dedicated sports programmes focusing on women. Female individuals such as Clare Balding and Barbara Slater are an important part of that process.

First World War Commemorations

Rehman Chishti: What steps he is taking to ensure that the contribution of people from black and minority ethnic communities in the first world war is appropriately commemorated.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the significant contribution of ethnic minority soldiers to Britain’s war effort. He may be interested to know that just last week I made a private visit to Ypres; I went to the Menin gate memorial remembrance service and saw for myself that among the names of soldiers whose graves are unknown, there were many from the Indian subcontinent.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Minister for Equalities for that answer and welcome him to his position. More than 1 million people from ethnic minorities served our country in the first world war, and 12 soldiers from the Indian subcontinent have been awarded the Victoria Cross for valour. What are the Government doing to ensure that Victoria Cross recipients from minority communities born in other countries are properly commemorated?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I am pleased to tell him that recipients of the Victoria Cross who were born abroad will be commemorated not only in their country of birth, but here in Britain.

Keith Vaz: I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. This is the first time in the history of this country that a majority of Ministers in a Department are from the ethnic minority communities—all with different hairstyles, but all appointed on merit. I strongly support what the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) said. Could we have a physical representation of that, and may I offer Leicester as a city in which a monument could be put up to those who served in the war?

Sajid Javid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his warm words, despite his comments about my excellent hairstyle. He makes an important point about a monument—I cannot think why he picked Leicester—and that is certainly worth looking at.

Paul Uppal: My great-grandfather fought in the great war, a fact that I became aware of only in the past decade. May I impress on my right hon. Friend that as well as a written record of history, there is often an oral history of acts of great bravery in the Indian and, specifically, Sikh regiments?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for the contribution his family made to the great war—as did, obviously, many other families, but especially, as he highlighted, people of ethnic minority backgrounds. He has made an important point, and I will certainly look at that.

Jim Shannon: The Commonwealth contribution to the first world war was significant. In particular, one in 10 people who served came from undivided India. In Northern Ireland we have a very large Indian community. What discussions has the Minister had with the bodies responsible in Northern Ireland to ensure that the community’s significant contribution is commemorated?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will know that more than 70,000 soldiers from the Indian army made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of Britain in the great war. With respect to
	Northern Ireland, I have not had any discussions so far in my new role, but I will certainly raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Bullying in Schools

Simon Wright: What steps he is taking to reduce homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying in schools.

Jennifer Willott: This Government are committed to tackling all forms of bullying in schools, and have provided advice to schools on how to tackle this harmful behaviour. However, we know that homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying persists and we have therefore recently awarded the contract for a new project to identify the best ways to help drive out this type of bullying.

Simon Wright: I am pleased that the Government have this week announced the contract for the review of evidence of what works in tackling such bullying. Can the Minister explain how she expects the outcome of this work to be taken forward and how the findings will be made available to schools in a way that will easily and practically help to inform their approach?

Jennifer Willott: I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for this important project. This type of bullying is completely unacceptable. It must be addressed and we must learn the best way to do that. NatCen Social Research, to whom the contract has been awarded, has already started looking at the evidence for the most effective measures to tackle such bullying. It will report in the summer and we will use its report to develop and pilot interventions in schools. The learning from those pilots will be consolidated into a single package of guidance on what works, so that we can share that experience widely across all schools. That will help to ensure that the outcomes of the project live beyond the funding that is available and that they are embedded in future support for schools.

Chris Bryant: What message does it send to those tackling homophobic bullying in this country that this country has a garrison in Brunei, which has just introduced the death penalty—stoning—for homosexuals?

Jennifer Willott: That is clearly a worrying issue, which I am happy to raise with my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, as appropriate.

Philip Davies: Clearly, any kind of homophobic bullying is completely unacceptable in schools or anywhere else. I just wonder whether the Department has a hierarchy of bullying—whether it considers homophobic, biphobic or transphobic bullying to be more serious than other forms of bullying, or whether it considers all forms of bullying to be equally important.

Jennifer Willott: Clearly, bullying is bullying, regardless of the intent behind it. All forms of bullying need to be tackled in schools and stamped out. It has a hugely detrimental impact on the ability of children to enjoy
	school and on their achievements and their grades at the end of it. In 2012 this Government introduced the requirement that when inspecting schools, Ofsted should consider how the school tackles bullying. That is now considered part of Ofsted’s inspection, to make sure that schools are tackling all forms of bullying, regardless of the intent behind it.

Older Women’s Employment

Helen Goodman: What steps she is taking to support older women’s employment.

Jennifer Willott: Jobcentre Plus uses a range of innovative approaches to help older claimants. Local schemes include IT support aimed specifically at older people, dedicated advisers for those aged over 50, and help to convert dated qualifications into certifications that are relevant for modern employers. Overall female inactivity is now at a record low.

Helen Goodman: I am rather surprised by the Minister’s response, given that unemployment among older women has rocketed by more than 40% and the Work programme has failed more than 90% of women aged over 50. Her response was complacent. What more is she going to do?

Jennifer Willott: I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s question. More than 3.5 million women aged over 50 are in employment, which is more than 63% of that age group. Across the UK more women are in work than ever before. There has been additional support for older women. One example of the support that jobcentres are providing that has made a real difference is the new employment allowance that helps people to set up their own business. Nearly a quarter of those who have set up businesses using that allowance are over the age of 50 and it is proving particularly popular.

Lorely Burt: Women are revered in many societies for their knowledge and wisdom, but the first thing that comes up in a Google search for “employing older women” is toyboywarehouse.com. In America, women will not stand for invisibility or marginalisation and have created OWL—the Older Women’s League—to fight for older women in public policy and the workplace. Does my hon. Friend believe that we should do the same in the UK?

Jennifer Willott: The Government are in the process of appointing a business champion for older workers, and an announcement will be made in the next couple of months. That person will have a responsibility to ensure that older workers—in particular women, as the proposal came out of the recommendations of the Women’s Business Council—are taken more seriously by employers and have their skills and experience recognised. This may well be an issue that the champion would like to take up.

Sharon Hodgson: The Minister mentioned the older workers business champion, but that was promised over a year ago following a recommendation from the Women’s Business Council. Why have we had to wait for more than a year? The Minister said that the Government are looking at appointing such a champion, but is the year’s delay a result of older women not being a priority?

Jennifer Willott: The Women’s Business Council made a wide range of important recommendations on how women interact in the economy from school age to leaving the work force, and the Government have been working carefully to ensure that we implement as many of them as possible. That element is now in track. The older workers business champion will be appointed shortly, and I hope that we will then see the next part of the process taken forward.

Care Homes

Nick Smith: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Oban House care home and the Government’s policy for safeguarding residents in care homes.

Norman Lamb: The images that we saw on our screens last night were truly disgusting. No one deserves treatment like that. The family and loved ones of care home residents should not have to endure that. Poor care is completely unacceptable. Everyone should receive the highest standards of care delivered by well-trained and compassionate staff. We are committed to making that a reality and to preventing abuse and neglect. We are putting in place, through reform of the Care Quality Commission, a range of measures to improve the regulation of care homes, to hold to account providers that are responsible for unacceptable care, and to improve the quality of social care.
	The chief inspector of social care at the CQC is putting in place new rigorous inspections carried out by specialist inspection teams. New fundamental standards of care are being introduced as requirements for registration with the CQC, which will allow the CQC to prosecute providers—and their directors—that are responsible for unacceptable care. We are introducing a new fit-and-proper-person test for directors of companies that provide care, which will allow the CQC to remove individual directors. The care certificate is on track to be introduced in March 2015 and is currently being piloted by employers. That certificate will include compulsory training. The CQC is being given the power to produce ratings of care providers that will provide a fuller picture of the quality of care than mere compliance with minimum standards.
	A new statutory duty of candour on providers of care is being introduced, which will place a legal requirement on organisations to be open with patients about serious incidents. We are introducing a new offence of ill treatment and wilful neglect—one for an organisation and one for individuals. It will apply not just to those who do not have capacity, as is currently the case, but to all users of health and adult social care and all health and adult social care settings. A consultation on the new offence ended on 31 March, and we are now considering the responses. We aim to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity.

Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for his statement. The majority of residential care providers provide good, if not excellent, care. However, many of us across the country will have been sickened by the contemptible and callous treatment of elderly people in the Oban House and Old Deanery homes that we saw on “Panorama” last night. When we were shown the many calls for help from Yvonne Grant that were ignored, I, for one, railed against her so-called carers.
	I acknowledge that the Care Bill will improve the safeguarding of elderly care home residents, but residents and their families need to know that their voices of concern are heard and acted upon when they feel that care is poor. The CQC needs to be up to the job. I met
	the CQC two days ago and felt that its engagement with residents and relatives could be much better. Can the Minister assure the House that the CQC will have the staff and expertise to carry out all the necessary inspections, including on the financial viability of care homes? Will he ensure that there is effective monitoring of care homes between inspections so that if there is high staff turnover, for example, that will be flagged up? Can he tell the House what training will be required for care homes staff? Will it be on the job and, if so, for how long?
	Although it is right that care workers are held to account for their actions, senior managers should also shoulder their responsibilities. The Government failed to support my amendment to the Care Bill, which would have introduced an offence of corporate neglect. That would allow the prosecution of a care provider if the culture they set is a contributory factor in abuse or neglect. Police Operation Jasmine identified that sort of corporate neglect in south Wales. Will the Minister look again at the proposal in order to promote the care we all want for our loved ones in the place that they call home?

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his urgent question and his supplementary questions, which are absolutely legitimate and important. I agree that it is incredibly important that we recognise that there is a lot of great care out there, with incredibly dedicated care workers doing a very difficult job, often in difficult circumstances and without great pay. It would be awful if they were all tainted by the actions of a few.
	I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Care Bill can make a difference and improve standards. It allows for the introduction of a care certificate so that everyone will be required, for the first time, to have compulsory training and meet a standard of competence before undertaking unsupervised care work. Part of that will be on the job, as I think is right for such work, but it is essential that people meet that standard.
	The hon. Gentleman made the essential point that relatives, loved ones and the users of services themselves need to be heard. One thing we have done in that regard through NHS Choices is introduce the ability for anyone to comment on care services in a care home or in domiciliary care and to put their comments online, so that there is no hiding place for unacceptable standards of care. People’s comments and the judgments of the CQC will be available for everyone to see through the NHS Choices website.
	I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman in relation to his amendment to the Care Bill. I totally agree with him about the importance of being able to prosecute for corporate neglect, which we will address, but in a different way. We are introducing fundamental standards of care that every care provider, and indeed every NHS hospital, must meet in order to be registered with the CQC. Where those standards are not met and there are serious failures, and where there is culpability because of corporate neglect of the sort he describes, the providers will be prosecuted. The CQC will have the power to prosecute not only the company or trust, but individual directors. This is the first time that that has been made possible. The existing regime is flawed, because the CQC must first serve a notice before anything can be done, and if the company complies with the notice it cannot be
	prosecuted, which is hopeless. We are removing that so that we can move straight to prosecution, as was the intention of his amendment.

Phillip Lee: I fear that this case will not be the last. May I invite the Minister to think longer term? I have often reflected on why our society outsources the care of elderly loved ones to the state. In the longer term, with an ageing society, I wonder whether we are going to have to look after our elderly more at home. Is there any policy formation within the Department along those lines, because the last thing I would like to happen is my relatives being treated in the way we have seen?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend makes a really important point. In ensuring that we have decent, civilised standards of care for older people, but also for people with learning disabilities and others in vulnerable positions, it cannot be any one party on its own that achieves that objective. It is a challenge for the whole of society, and we must recognise that. Government have their part to play in setting very clear standards and making it absolutely clear that where these standards are not met there are consequences. Through the integration pioneers that we have around the country, we are demonstrating that with better collaboration between statutory services and families, wider communities and neighbours, we can achieve better care for people. The state cannot do this on its own. It has a crucial role to play, but this is a challenge for the whole of society.

Luciana Berger: I think the whole country was appalled last night when the BBC’s “Panorama” programme exposed the neglect and abuse of vulnerable older people at the hands of their carers. When older people and their families take a decision to move into residential care, they must be assured of high standards. Poor care must be stamped out and those responsible properly held to account.
	First, I want to press the Minister on the specific case at Oban House. He will be aware that concerns were first raised about the home by whistleblowers back in 2012. What action was taken to address those concerns, and were they brought to the attention of Ministers? In its latest inspection in February, the Care Quality Commission reported that the home had too few staff and that some residents waited too long for staff to answer their calls. Will the Minister set out precisely what action was taken after those failures were highlighted back in February?
	The Minister will be aware that following the awful abuse exposed by “Panorama”, a number of staff have been suspended, and HC-One has said it will increase staffing levels and improve training at the care home. However, is he fully satisfied that the safety and well-being of residents at Oban House is not still at risk?
	This case raises serious questions about not only the inspection of care homes but the role of local councils. Councils and local authorities, which are much closer to care homes, should have a strong role in monitoring and driving up care standards. They should be the first safety net. Was it not a major error, therefore, to remove in the Care Bill the CQC’s powers to check that local councils are commissioning care services properly?
	Care home bosses who fail to ensure that their residents are treated properly must face tough consequences. I heard what the Minister said about holding those bosses to account. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), as he outlined, proposed an amendment to the Care Bill to introduce a new criminal offence so that negligent care home owners can be fined or sent to jail. Is it not disappointing that the Government voted against that amendment?
	In the first three years of this Parliament, social care budgets have been slashed by £1.8 billion. Yesterday, the growing abuse of zero-hours contracts, particularly in the care sectors, was revealed. Does the Minister accept that we will never get the standard of care that we aspire to from a social care system that has been cut to the bone? Should the coalition not revisit its brutal cuts to social care, which make such a situation more, not less, likely to occur?
	This shocking case is yet another reminder that the time has come for a radical rethink of how we care for older people. These abuses must stop. How many more “Panorama” programmes exposing appalling cases such as Oban House must we see before proper action is taken? Today, the Government must explain how they plan to prevent older people facing further abuse and indignity.

Norman Lamb: I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I completely agree that unacceptable practices, and abuse and neglect, must be stamped out. I hope she is pleased that the Government are taking action to ensure that we can prosecute care providers who have allowed unacceptable practices. When I came into my job and had to respond to the scandal at Winterbourne View, the question I asked officials was, “What has happened to the company? How has it been held to account?” I was told that the Care Quality Commission could not prosecute because it had to serve a notice first, and if the company complied with the notice, nothing could be done.
	A flawed regulatory regime was established when the CQC came into being. We are changing that so that providers of care can be prosecuted if they fail to meet fundamental standards of care. [Interruption.] I am answering the question. That is precisely what we are doing. The hon. Lady mentioned the issue of corporate accountability and corporate neglect, and that is exactly what we are addressing: we are giving the CQC the power to prosecute when there is corporate neglect.
	We are also going further by introducing a fit-and-proper-person test so that every director of every care company will have to demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person. That should already be the case, but this is the first time it has happened. We are also introducing proper standards of training for all staff.
	On the care home concerned, I hope it will be helpful if I write to the hon. Lady setting out the whole sequence of events and the entire timeline of the steps taken by the CQC. I commit to doing that in the next few days so that she will have the full picture.
	We have made sure that the CQC is independent—we have strengthened its independence. We are introducing a far more robust inspection regime and we are addressing a problem. When the CQC was introduced by the Labour Government, the design of the inspection system
	was for generalist inspectors who might inspect hospitals one week and care homes the next. We are introducing specialist inspections. When inspectors go into a care home, they will talk to relatives, residents and staff, to get a much fuller picture of what is going on. Care homes will then be rated on their standards of care, so everyone will know what their local provider’s standards are.
	I hope the hon. Lady will feel that real, substantial steps are being taken to address unacceptable standards of care and to ensure that people are properly held to account when bad things happen.

Tony Baldry: Everyone in the House will want to ensure that anyone in residential care is treated with the compassion we would expect if our own much-loved parents were in such care. In addition to supporting the CQC’s specialist inspections, does my hon. Friend not think that we may be reaching a point where health and wellbeing boards will need to consider setting up panels of trained, independent lay visitors to visit residential care homes in their own area—unheralded and unannounced—to check whether people are getting the care and compassion that is merited and that we would all want for anyone in a care home in our constituencies?

Norman Lamb: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question and I very much share his view. In my own county of Norfolk, a brilliant third sector organisation is doing precisely that. It is arranging for ordinary people to go into care homes, judge the sense of kindness of compassion there and give a much richer view than statutory agencies might be able to provide. I would also point to the role of Healthwatch England, which has been established through the health reforms. Those organisations have the power in every local area to go into care homes—they cannot be blocked from going into them or any other health or care setting—to make their own judgments on where things are going wrong. Through that much greater transparency and openness, we will not only expose poor care but drive up standards.

Ben Bradshaw: Do not terrible events such as those revealed by the brilliant “Panorama” team show that the Government were wrong to reject one of the central recommendations of the Francis report, namely that care assistants should be regulated?

Norman Lamb: First, I share the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition of the work that “Panorama” has done. It is interesting that two examples of appalling abuse—namely this case and that at Winterbourne View—have been exposed as a result of hidden cameras. We must acknowledge that and recognise that there might be a role for the use of hidden cameras in the CQC’s work where there is potential evidence of abuse and where we need to establish that evidence in order to take effective action.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about registration, my concern is that the registration of nurses did not stop awful things happening at Mid Staffordshire. It is not in itself a panacea that ensures good-quality care. For me, the most important element is proper
	training to ensure that everyone is trained to an acceptable standard before undertaking unsupervised care work. If we can establish that standard across the country, we can drive up standards.

Paul Burstow: Care homes should be places of light and laughter, rather than places of fear and neglect. They should be seen as part of their communities, rather than apart from their communities. Will the Minister therefore look again at the proposals in this Government’s White Paper on care and support for commissioning a piece of work delivered by the programme called My Home Life, which is all about delivering relationship-based care? Rather than care that is just about transactions, the programme is about changing the nature of the relationship between those who provide care and those who receive it.

Norman Lamb: I am certainly happy to have another look at the White Paper and to discuss it with my right hon. Friend, but let me just address his key point. It is absolutely right to say that when we have closed doors, awful things can happen beyond the sight of the public. Professor Martin Green, who is a very good leader of providers of care, has argued the case for care homes to become a sort of hub in their local community, opening their doors to ensure that they become a centre of excellence for that community and providing services and support for people who may live independently at home, but who would benefit from the skills in such an organisation. Openness, transparency and ensuring that the public gaze is cast upon what goes in such places is the right way forward.

Madeleine Moon: Before I came into the House, I worked for the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales, and when I had concerns about a care home with which I was working, I made unannounced inspections. Will the Minister tell us how many unannounced inspections were made at Oban House, and can he guarantee that the CQC has enough inspectors and enough capacity to carry out frequent unannounced inspections for homes about which it has any concerns?

Norman Lamb: We are making absolutely sure that the Care Quality Commission has the capacity and the funding to do its job properly. That question was also asked by the shadow Minister, and I apologise for not responding on that point. We absolutely want to make sure that the CQC has the capacity to do unannounced inspections, but, critically, to do much more robust inspections as well.
	This is a process—we cannot introduce a different system overnight—but the new system of robust inspections is already being used in about 1% of care homes, with a view to the process being rolled out fully in October this year. The first ratings of care homes will emerge in October this year. Members of the public, when they are making crucial decisions about where a loved one will receive care, will therefore have much more information about which care providers are good and which are not up to standard. I will make sure that the hon. Lady receives the same timeline of what the Care Quality Commission did that I offered to the shadow Minister.

Andrew Selous: Yet again, it has taken undercover reporting by the BBC and covert recording by families to shine a spotlight on these appalling abuses. Given that people with dementia, in particular, cannot tell their own story—in some recent cases, that has involved their being slapped—should not the CQC not only make unannounced visits, but seriously consider undercover work to record these terrible abuses?

Norman Lamb: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have spoken to the chair of the CQC, David Prior, specifically about this matter. It is looking at both the use of hidden cameras in appropriate circumstances and at mystery shopping—going into care homes, finding out what is going on and getting a real picture, rather than things perhaps being hidden away from view when a named inspector turns up. All these mechanisms have to be used. We have to be prepared to do these things to ensure that people in very vulnerable situations, particularly people with dementia, are cared for with dignity.

Barry Gardiner: The care homes sector is growing in size and in profitability. In his remarks, the Minister focused on the low wages that are paid to care workers in the sector. Often, the pay reflects the value that is put on the work that is being done. Will he look at pay and profitability in the sector, and consider the impact that it may have on bad practice?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The difference in the providers that pay people properly is clear. Incidentally, domiciliary care is another area where there are concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) visited Wiltshire recently, which has moved away from the old style of paying people a pittance and now gives care workers a salary. When that happens, the whole culture starts to change completely.
	We must ensure that there is compliance with the minimum wage, as well as advocating wages that are better than the minimum. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has done a lot of work in the sector to address the abuse of the minimum wage regulations, which is far too widespread. It is completely intolerable for any care provider not to meet its statutory obligations. As the shadow Minister said, we have to ensure that when they commission care, councils cannot be complicit in an arrangement that they know will end up with people not receiving proper pay.

Mr Speaker: Nobody could accuse the fastidious Minister of excluding from the answers any consideration that he thinks might in any way be material. If he can combine that with reasonable economy, the House will be even more grateful to him than it is.

Mark Harper: On the Minister’s last point, I am pleased that Gloucestershire county council, notwithstanding the financial pressures on it, has prioritised spending on adult social care for elderly people and those with learning disabilities. From his conversations with the CQC, is he confident that its culture is not just that of a tick-box regulator, but that of an organisation that sees itself as the champion of those who are receiving care and their families, such that if it sees the sort of abuse that was highlighted on television last night, it will act to ensure that it comes to an end and that the perpetrators are dealt with swiftly?

Norman Lamb: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your gentle guidance. I will do my best.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. One cannot change the culture of an organisation overnight. The Care Quality Commission was a dysfunctional organisation, but it now has really good leadership in the form of David Behan and its chairman, David Prior. They understand the importance of changing the culture and ensuring that they are always the champion of the patient.

Barry Sheerman: I say to the Minister and all colleagues in the House that this is not good enough. It is disgraceful. We had it before and we had similar answers. We have to stop this. There are wonderful carers out there—most carers are wonderful—but they need support, good skills training and to be paid properly. Surely we ought to have a charter in every home that says, “These are your rights. Don’t let them be infringed. They are clear.” Every good hotel and business has such a charter hanging up where everyone can see it. Can we not have that tomorrow?

Norman Lamb: Many care homes are signing up to exactly those standards. The more that happens, the more we should applaud and encourage it. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should all be completely intolerant of such abuse and neglect. It is a challenge for the whole of society. Whichever Government are in power need to hold the line of being absolutely intolerant of any failures of care and must demonstrate that when they happen, there are real consequences that will hold people to account.

Tim Loughton: As I found out recently when trying to find a suitable home for a relative, trying to get assurances about the quality of care and not just the quality of the buildings, let alone working out how one pays for it all, is a minefield. The truth is that this abuse was uncovered not by the CQC but by the BBC. Following on from the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), could we not have a reporting mechanism, be it through residents, their relatives or volunteer visiting friends, which would be particularly appropriate for those who lack capacity, that would trigger such an investigation by the CQC, with the use of undercover cameras and so on? Could we not have something as high profile as ChildLine that works and that people know about?

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend—or is he right honourable?

Tim Loughton: Just honourable.

Norman Lamb: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Of course the work has to go way beyond just what the CQC can do. I mentioned in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) the fact that organisations focusing particularly on compassionate care now carry out inspections and make reports. I have also mentioned NHS Choices, which means that any member of the public can give their comments on the care experience of a loved one. The
	more people use their power to highlight unacceptable things that are happening in care homes, and indeed great things, the better.

Lilian Greenwood: My constituent Maureen Pycroft witnessed appalling standards in the home where her husband Barry was meant to be cared for, and she was horrified to learn that the same care provider went on to run other services and abuse other vulnerable people some years later. Will the Minister assure me that the CQC now has powers to ensure that when there is abuse in homes, the providers who run them will be barred from running homes in the future?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and that is why we are introducing the fit and proper person test for every director of every care or health care provider. If they have been complicit in unacceptable standards or prosecuted for unacceptable care, the CQC can require them to be removed from the board of a care provider. The new standards should help considerably.

Andrew Percy: Nobody who uses schools is unaware of Ofsted and its job. Should we not look for a similar situation with regard to the CQC, and is there not a big public information job to be done to ensure that people know better what the CQC is there for and how to access it?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CQC needs to build a reputation so that everyone has confidence in its ability always to represent the patient’s interests. I believe that the CQC’s leadership understand that mission and are well on the way to achieving it, but it will not happen overnight.

Catherine McKinnell: I have seen wonderful examples of residential care in my constituency, but I have also had concerns raised with me about staffing levels and zero-hours contracts in other care homes. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and transparency is key, so what are the Government doing to enhance and protect the vital role of employees who blow the whistle on poor standards of care?

Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to recognise that there is great care out there, and we should applaud care workers who deliver fantastic care. I was at an awards dinner recently at which individual care workers were given awards for providing great care. Celebrating great care is incredibly important in changing the culture of the sector.
	The Government took steps to fund a helpline that had previously been only for health workers and extended it to social care, so that anyone can seek advice about what to do if they want to whistleblow. The culture must be that anyone feels able to blow the whistle and get things done, and the CQC must respond effectively when that happens.

Robert Halfon: The Minister will be aware that we have previously had problems with a care home in Harlow, but we also have some excellent ones, particularly Tye Green Lodge, Alexandra House and a number of others. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should boost the confidential hotline and set it up as a
	proper hotline like Crimestoppers, to allow people to feel that they can call? Does he also agree that we should ensure that it is advertised properly to everyone who uses care homes and their relatives?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend makes an important point and it is right to highlight the great places that are providing excellent care. The Care Quality Commission makes it clear that it encourages members of the public to come forward and alert it to concerns, but we must do much more to make it easy for members of the public, so that they understand exactly what they need to do if they have concerns.

Kelvin Hopkins: I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) for her comments, particularly on local authorities. A major factor in all this and across the care sector has been the widespread privatisation of very good local authority care homes. In my constituency, three superb homes were forcibly closed. They were loved by their staff, their residents and the families, and admired by local health professionals—all closed; all gone. Is it time to re-establish a role for local authorities in providing care services and making all care locally and democratically accountable?

Norman Lamb: Unacceptable standards of care must be condemned and challenged wherever they occur, whether in the private, public or voluntary sector. Mid Staffordshire hospital was an NHS hospital, yet awful things happened. We must be intolerant of abuse or neglect wherever it happens. On local authorities—the shadow Minister raised this point—we have the power to require the Care Quality Commission to inspect on specific issues, including where there are concerns about the commissioning of care. It is important that those powers are there to be used.

Priti Patel: The BBC shone a spotlight in its programme on the practices of specific care homes. What message can my hon. Friend give to people whose vulnerable family members have been in those homes and treated so appallingly? What level of reassurance can he give those families that their safeguarding is being taken care of and that this abuse will stop?

Norman Lamb: The way I would put it is that we owe it to those families to demonstrate that we are taking effective action to address the very serious concerns they have raised. All the steps the Government are taking, which I have outlined this morning, will go a long way to eradicating such behaviour. Where it does occur—there will always be bad apples in any system—there must be real consequences not only for that individual care worker, but for a company that allowed such things to happen in the first place.

Alison Seabeck: As a constituency MP I respond to CQC reports by visits or by writing to care homes. On a recent visit to a very good care home, staff talked to me about their new apprentice with great enthusiasm. That apprentice will receive good training and support, and I am sure they will be a good employee. Is the Minister confident that the CQC has the capacity to oversee and assess apprenticeship training to ensure that it is not just cheap labour and that apprentices are getting the best education?

Norman Lamb: First, I applaud the hon. Lady for going to those care homes and seeing for herself what is going on in response to Care Quality Commission reports. We should all be willing to do that. I have already said that the CQC has been given extra funding, and we are completely committed to ensuring that it has the capacity to do its job properly and substantially increase the number of apprentices in that sector. As she says, proper training is vital to ensure a properly trained work force.

Glyn Davies: Does the Minister agree that the most effective way to raise standards and ensure a culture of compassion and sympathetic care in a full range of care settings is by strengthening corporate responsibility? We need public opprobrium to be aimed at the owners and directors of those companies so that they are persuaded to introduce systems such as lay visitor or advocacy schemes within those care settings, to ensure that examples of this sort do not happen.

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the Government have taken steps to ensure that the Care Quality Commission can prosecute when there are examples of the new fundamental standards of care we are introducing being breached. In future, no one will be able to get away with allowing poor standards of care in their workplace. We will take action through prosecution and the fit-and-proper-person test to drive up standards.

Stephen McCabe: The Minister has spoken a fair bit about the extra powers he will give the Care Quality Commission, but staff at that agency gave the Old Deanery home a clean bill of health in November 2013. Two months later after the “Panorama” revelations they found significant failings. What will the Minister do about inspectors who failed to do their job? Will they be free to carry on as if nothing has happened?

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. In a way, he makes the case for why the inspection regime needs to be much more robust and not a tick-box exercise. More effective inspection, with inspectors talking to staff and, crucially, relatives of those in the care home, will provide a much better picture of what is going on there. It is for the CQC as the employer to address any concerns it has about the way in which its staff have conducted themselves, but the new tough inspection regime is being introduced, with 1% of care homes already covered. It will be fully implemented by October this year.

Philip Hollobone: I applaud the Minister for his efforts to change the prosecution regime for residential care home abuse, but is he optimistic that he can get the changes through so that we might see some exemplary prosecutions by the end of this year?

Norman Lamb: I hope that the changes will be implemented in October, but of course criminal investigations take time. The whole purpose is for the changes to act as a deterrent to stop bad things happening, but I take the view that if there is evidence that awful things have happened, the CQC must use its new powers. If it were to do so, it would send a very clear signal to the rest of the sector that this is a serious regulator that will use its powers effectively.

Diana Johnson: Because of the high turnover of staff in the adult care sector, intelligence on care staff, especially those who have committed abuse and are barred, is very important. Why has there been a 60% drop in the number of people barred from working with vulnerable adults on the basis of information from care home providers in the last three years?

Norman Lamb: I will investigate the figures that the hon. Lady mentions. She is right to suggest that it is important that if employers—both in the social care and health sectors—dismiss a worker for abuse of patients or residents, they refer the case to the barring scheme. If employers are not doing that, they are failing in their responsibilities. We have to protect people in such cases and I will look into the point she raises.

Martin Vickers: The CQC has recently published a critical report on some care homes in north-east Lincolnshire that care for people suffering from mental health difficulties. I welcome what the Minister said earlier about the need for better training. Dealing with mental health patients is particularly challenging, so can he give an absolute assurance that more work will be done to ensure that training meets the standards required?

Norman Lamb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the fact that it is just as important to protect and provide great care for younger adults who have other needs, be those mental health issues, learning disabilities or autism, as it is for frail older people. All the requirements on compulsory training will apply equally in the former settings as they will in the latter. We have to drive up standards there as well.

Richard Ottaway: The Oban House health care home is located in my constituency and I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, the House and the Minister for not being here when the Minister made his statement. I hear that the Minister made a comprehensive statement that covered a lot of the issues. When the dust has settled, will he agree to meet me and any concerned constituents to assess how the situation arose and how we can make progress?

Norman Lamb: Yes, of course I will.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 5 May—The House will not be sitting.
	Tuesday 6 May—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Wales Bill. It may be helpful if I remind colleagues that the House will sit at 2.30 pm next Tuesday and that the moment of interruption will be at 10 o’clock.
	Wednesday 7 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Water Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 8 May—A debate on motions relating to House of Commons business, including on petitions, programming, parliamentary privilege and amendments to Standing Orders, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 12 May will include:
	Monday 12 May—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Day 1).
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall will be:
	Thursday 8 May—A debate on the fourth report of the Scottish Affairs Committee on the impact of the bedroom tax in Scotland: interim report, followed by a debate on the 10th report of the Environmental Audit Committee on sustainability in the UK overseas territories.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business.
	Mr Speaker, yesterday you announced that the Clerk of the House will be retiring after 42 years of distinguished service to this place. There will be an occasion in future to pay an appropriate tribute, but for now I just observe that his seminal opus “How Parliament Works” still remains the most borrowed book in the whole of the House of Commons Library. The warm applause he received from all sides of the House yesterday is a fitting tribute to the esteem in which he is held.
	Given the languid nature of the Government’s legislative programme to date, may I congratulate the Leader of the House on managing to find at least some business for us to consider? Will he now confirm to the House what we all know: that next Thursday he will be at the Dispatch Box announcing an early Prorogation and admitting that they are a Government who have not only run out of ideas but out of steam?
	I note that next Thursday we will debate a range of motions on House business, including on programming, privilege, e-petitions and Standing Orders. I also note that some of those motions are being rewritten at the last minute and even as we speak. Will the Leader of the House set out what he will be proposing? Will he tell us
	how he plans to structure the debates and, more important, whether there will be separate votes? After last year’s embarrassment of Tory Back Benchers moving to regret their own Queen’s Speech, will he confirm whether the Government are trying to avoid a repeat performance this year by attempting to limit the number of amendments that can be tabled, or are they frantically rewriting the motion even as we speak because they realised that they going were to lose the vote and have had to back off from this attempt to gag Parliament? What a spectacle: a Government who have to contemplate changing the Standing Orders to stop their own Back Benchers amending their own Queen’s Speech, and then have to abandon the attempt because they realised they would lose the vote.
	On Monday, almost 80 Conservative Members were allowed to absent themselves or rebel on their Government’s flagship High Speed 2 Bill. Those conveniently absent included the Attorney-General, the Minister for Europe, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—and the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister has been taking lessons on collective responsibility from the Liberal Democrats?
	Today is May day. Given that the Tories have farcically renamed themselves the workers’ party, will the Leader of the House tell me whether he or the Chief Whip plan to be on any May day marches this weekend to show solidarity with their comrades in South Cambridgeshire and North West Hampshire? May we have a debate, in Government time, on the increasing levels of insecurity in work, so they can explain why exactly it is that there are now more than 2 million zero-hours contracts in this country, and why underemployment is at record levels?
	Yesterday the Government were forced to reveal the list of 16 firms that had been given priority access to the Royal Mail fire sale. We now know that Lazard—the same firm that had advised the Business Secretary on the price—bought nearly half the shares that were available to the priority bidders, and was able to make a profit of £8 million in a single week. The chairman of Lazard in the United Kingdom is a former Tory Member of Parliament. The Chancellor’s best man made a mint, and numerous Tory donors appear to have benefited from being allowed into this cosy old boys’ club. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills so that he can explain the cronyism that exists in the Government?
	With just three weeks to go until the local and European elections, the race is hotting up. The Prime Minister, on the campaign trail in Essex, could not tell his Chelmsfords from his Colchesters—which proves that with this Prime Minister it is not “The Only Way is Essex” but more like “Made in Chelsea”. Meanwhile, in their bunker, the Liberal Democrats are eagerly awaiting the verdict of the electorate. The number of candidates they are putting up is significantly down, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne) has described his own party as “largely pointless”, and the Deputy Prime Minister must be fondly reminiscing about the days when everyone thought he was the man who was going to change British politics. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury recently declared that the Cornish were now a national minority; I think it is about time that he also declared that the Liberal Democrats are now a national joke.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement, and, in particular, for her warm words about the Clerk of the House. I hope to be able to announce before the summer recess an opportunity for us to pay tribute to the Clerk. I share the hon. Lady’s sense that we have in our present Clerk someone who has been not only exemplary in the fulfilling of his duties but inspirational in his attachment to the House of Commons and its responsibilities, and to the quality of democracy and accountability in this place. That was demonstrated amply in his letter to the Speaker, which was read to us yesterday.
	I welcome the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), to his new position. We are very grateful to the former shadow deputy Leader, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), and wish her well in her responsibilities for water and animal welfare. I have to say that the arrival of the new shadow deputy Leader has not yet produced any improvement in the quality of the jokes in the response to the business statement, but we look forward to that; it might happen. If nothing else, we know that we shall now have plenty of advice on procedure, which I am sure we shall all appreciate.
	Curiously, the shadow Leader of the House began by asking me what I was going to announce next week. I shall announce next week what I am going to announce next week, but it will come as no surprise to the hon. Lady that I shall not be in a position to advise on the date of prorogation until the business that needs to be transacted during the current Session has been assured. And that is the point—we do have business. We have had a busy Session: I believe that we have introduced some 24 Bills, not including carry-overs, which is a substantial programme. There are four Bills whose progress we need to complete, and we are dealing with five that will be carried over into the next Session.
	The hon. Lady asked about the structure of next Thursday’s business. Time does not permit me to describe all the motions that will need to be considered, but I propose that there should be a time-limited debate lasting some three hours and allowing consideration of a range of issues relating to House business. There will be separate votes on those issues at the end of the debate.
	The hon. Lady asked specifically about the content of Standing Order No. 33. We are simply trying to fulfil what I consider to be the responsibility of the Leader of the House, which is to ensure both that the will of the House can be met and that the Standing Orders are clear and unambiguous. The current position is that the Standing Order sets no limit to the number of amendments, although that was not the intention behind it. I think we can arrive at a solution—not least with the benefit of advice from the Procedure Committee—that will attract consensus throughout the House, which is always my aim.
	The hon. Lady asked about the HS2 vote, which illustrated the benefit of business questions, not least because it gave Members an opportunity some weeks ago to ask for additional time, as I think the shadow Leader of the House did. Additional time was found to ensure that we had a very full debate on Monday of this week, and time on Tuesday to debate the future processes
	for scrutinising the HS2 Bill. There was a majority of more than 400 in favour of the Bill, which was a very satisfactory outcome.
	As the shadow Leader of the House knows, the Prime Minister is a very busy man. His support for HS2 is not in doubt. [Interruption.] Opposition Members should not get too excited. I have taken the trouble to look at how often the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) voted in the 2005 Parliament, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and subsequently Prime Minister. He voted on 12.7% of occasions. The Prime Minister in this Parliament has voted on 17.8% of occasions—a considerably improved performance. In fact, it is not only an improved voting performance but an improved performance as Prime Minister.
	We have not had an opportunity to announce and discuss the future business of the House since 10 April, and I was struck by the fact that the shadow Leader of the House did not ask for a debate on the economy, on jobs, on the progress on inflation. [Interruption.] Oh—zero-hours contracts, I see. The Opposition are not really interested in how many jobs there are. Don’t worry, there will be an opportunity to discuss jobs, including that issue. My right hon. Friends and others at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills undertook a consultation on zero-hours contracts, so they are in a very good position to come to the House and advise how we can achieve improvements in such contracts and end abuse. However, in doing so we will recognise that it also matters to people that there are more jobs, that they are in jobs. Since we last met, it has been announced that the number of private sector jobs has increased by 1.7 million overall; that inflation has gone down to 1.6%; that confidence as reported by business surveys is at a 10-year high; and that growth in this country is now the fastest among the leading economic nations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, a great many hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but there is important business to follow and therefore a premium upon brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike. We can be led, in an exemplary fashion, on that front by Mr Charles Walker.

Charles Walker: I thank the Leader of the House for his movement on Standing Order No. 33 and for providing significant time next week for business to be transacted relating to my Committee’s reports. I urge him, a reform-minded Leader of the House, to join the Procedure Committee in driving forward an e-petition system that is absolutely geared to the needs of the House of Commons, its Members and, of course, our constituents.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his Committee for their work. I hope that next week’s debate will enable us to demonstrate that although we have a very successful system of e-petitions to Government, we do not have a mechanism by which members of the public can petition their Parliament. It is an essential and historic element of the work of this Parliament that it receive and consider petitions and grievances. Although
	the public have on occasion seen petitions to the Government website turn into debates in this House, strictly speaking the House has no ownership of the petition system itself. I hope we can, through that debate, initiate a process by which we can enable members of the public to feel that they are petitioning their Parliament and seeking its response, and action and response from Government at the same time.

Natascha Engel: One problem with the e-petition system was that it has not so far been debated by the House, so I welcome next week’s debate. If the Procedure Committee is to do the work on the details of bringing forward a system, will the Leader of the House confirm that we can all work together to have those proposals debated and voted on as soon as possible by the whole House, so that a system can be in place as soon as the new Parliament starts?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady is right about that, and I want to work with the Procedure Committee and other stakeholders across the House to ensure that we have something that works for the House and for the public. When hon. Members work back from the simple fact that the petitions website will be taken down at Dissolution early next year and has to be with the new Parliament when it assembles—we hope to introduce it in its adapted and enhanced form—I hope they can see that we have to agree in principle what needs to be done by the summer recess.

Bob Russell: May we have a debate on competitive tendering within the NHS, using as a case history ERS Medical, a private firm that cheated to win a contract for patient transport services in Essex? This morning, former members of the NHS ambulance trust turned up for work at ERS and were turned away. I would say that that is illegal—it is certainly immoral—and we should look at whether ERS Medical is up to any more of these cheating tricks to win contracts.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position to comment directly on the issues relating to ERS, but I will ask my colleagues at the Department of Health whether they will be able to respond to him, not least if he wishes to provide any further information.
	Of course, competitive tendering for patient transport services has been a part of the NHS for a long time; it is not something that has been recently introduced. What is new in the Health and Social Care Act 2012 is an absolute statutory basis for competitive tendering to be undertaken on the basis of delivering for the best interests of patients, and that is very important.

Jim Fitzpatrick: As a result of changes to the minimum practice income guarantee and the quality and outcomes framework last year, five GP practices in my constituency are threatened with closure, and The Times reports on its front page today that Tower Hamlets is not alone in this. May we please have an urgent statement from the Department of Health on what assessments have been made of the impact of these changes on constituencies such as mine?
	Would the Leader of the House be so kind as to reinforce my request for an urgent meeting with the appropriate Minister at the Department of Health?

Andrew Lansley: I will of course convey that request and ask whether a Minister will be able to meet the hon. Gentleman. I know from my previous work at the Department of Health—he, too, will understand this—that the MPIG was established under the 2004 GP contract, which had many flaws, one of which was that although it was said at the time that the MPIG would disappear over time, no mechanism was put in place for that to happen. The new framework proposes that the MPIG will disappear over time, but there is a substantial seven-year transitional period for that to happen. I will of course ask my colleagues to amplify things to the hon. Gentleman in detail.

Anne McIntosh: Will my right hon. Friend allow an early debate on rural broadband? On 1 January, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is introducing “digital by default” for all single farm payments, but 22% of my constituency will not have access to fast broadband so this really does require the most urgent attention from the Department.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will have heard our colleagues responding in Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions on issues relating to rural broadband. Some 20,000 homes in rural areas are acquiring broadband each week. It can be difficult to provide broadband in some rural areas, but the Government have a clear focus on ensuring not only that we achieve the objectives we set out on broadband in total, but that we focus on the most difficult-to-reach areas, finding technological and financial solutions for those, too.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that there cannot be a more deserved debate than one about the demise of the two deep coal mines in Thoresby and Kellingley, and that it should be held as soon as possible? There are three pits left in Britain, two of which are hanging on by their fingernails. As there is plenty of time to deal with the matter, will he arrange a debate so that we can discuss ways of saving those two collieries? Applications could be made for EU state aid. The Government could also find £70 million out of the £700 million that they took out of the miners’ pension scheme last February. Those are ways to save these pits, save the jobs and keep the coal mining industry afloat.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will have heard, as I have, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) respond precisely to some of the questions that he has just put. I completely understand that he and other Members may well wish to have a debate on this. It would be appropriate for them to seek to apply for an Adjournment debate, or to go through the Backbench Business Committee. I cannot promise Government time for this matter—

Dennis Skinner: It is about state aid.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman says that it is about state aid, but my right hon. Friend has made it clear that there is no mechanism by which the EU can provide
	state aid; that is not how it works. It is about whether this country is in a position to provide aid that would qualify as state aid and be accepted. He has heard my right hon. Friend respond directly to that point at this Dispatch Box.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The floods have at last receded in Somerset, and we are going back to normal. Can we please have time in this House to discuss the important lessons that we need to learn not just in the area of the Somerset levels but right across the United Kingdom where flooding has been a concern? We do not want another year like this one for any part of the United Kingdom. Unless the lessons are learned, we potentially face this problem time and again given the way in which the climate is changing.

Andrew Lansley: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and he is quite right. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that, by establishing the work of the new flooding Cabinet Committee, he is ensuring that there is strategic ministerial oversight of policy on flood recovery and long-term resilience, which is exactly the point that my hon. Friend makes. As those lessons are learned and exercises come together, Ministers who are overseeing the matter will, I am sure, take an opportunity to update the House as soon as possible.

Ian Lucas: A month ago, the Business Secretary told me that links between donations to the Conservative party and profits made from the sale of Royal Mail shares were nothing to do with him. Now that we know there are links, may we have an urgent debate on propriety in politics? In a week in which my constituents have seen a Member resign over propriety issues, it is clear that these matters go right to the heart of belief in British politics.

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong; there are no such links. I was involved in this area more than 20 years ago, and we made it absolutely clear that in the Conservative party, donations never buy influence over policy. I wish it were the same in the Labour party, but it is not. Last year, Len McCluskey gave the Labour party £1.2 million and said that the time had come to have a policy for rent controls. What did we get—a policy on rent controls.

Nigel Evans: May I ask for an early debate on financial travel support for parents who wish to send their youngsters to faith-based schools? Parents came to see me because they want to send their children to the Catholic school, St Augustines, in Billington. As they have to pass a non-faith-based school, they will get no support whatever for travel costs, and it will cost the parents hundreds of pounds. Financial discrimination is religious discrimination and that should not happen.

Andrew Lansley: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in the Chamber representing his constituents as assiduously as he has always done. We look forward to his continuing to do so. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Education to respond to him. It is important that, although there are significant financial constraints, we try to ensure that parents can in practice access the choice that we want them to.

Nigel Dodds: In light of the arrest and detention of a certain Gerry Adams in connection with the murder of Jean McConville, a mother of 10 who was abducted and murdered by the IRA, of which Gerry Adams was commander in Belfast in the ’70s, simply for going to the aid of a dying soldier, does the Leader of the House agree that this is an appropriate time for a debate on victims, so that they can be reassured that evidence will be followed up and that people will be brought to book no matter what their status or standing in society?

Andrew Lansley: The right hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, understand that I am not in a position to comment on any ongoing police investigation. His point about victims is important and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear at the Dispatch Box recently in relation to the wider circumstances and questions about the on-the-run terrorists review, we should always make sure that the needs of justice are served and that victims can see that we are continuing to pursue the issues that relate to that.

Matthew Offord: On Monday, I sought to ask the Home Secretary about the cost of the MPs’ asylum and immigration hotline, but was unable to do so. Will a Minister come to the Dispatch Box and give us that figure, and can we also talk about the proposal for a dedicated asylum hotline so that MPs and their staff are not tied up with comments and questions from people seeking explanations about their asylum applications and can focus on our constituents’ needs?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will know, not least from the many occasions on which I have quite properly received representations from hon. Members, that it is important to Members of this House that they can advise and support their constituents on many issues arising from asylum and immigration and that they can do so effectively through their contact with the Home Office and its associated agencies. I will, if I may, ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Immigration to respond directly to my hon. Friend on the subject of the cost of the asylum immigration hotline. It might be, if he is happy to do so, that he might like to have a direct conversation about how we can best represent our constituents in a way that serves their interests.

Kevin Barron: Will the Leader of the House find adequate time for discussion of the outstanding reports from the Standards Committee that await debate and of the report from its predecessor, the Committee on Standards and Privileges, on the proposed revision to the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members? That report was published in December 2012, yet we are still waiting for time for a debate in the House.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which allows me to say that I had hoped that we might have resolved those issues before now. We have not and I hope that we will soon. We and other stakeholders across the House need to establish consensus not only on that important issue but on how we might take forward the issues that the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee are considering as regards
	a more general revision of the code of conduct. I hope that in our conversations and my representations to his Committee we might be able to strengthen the work of the Standards Committee and give greater reassurance to the public and our constituents about the independence and robustness of the processes we have in place.

Richard Bacon: As chair of the all-party group on self-build, custom-build and independent house building, may I remind the Leader of the House that next week’s business includes a debate on this important subject, to which the Government committed £150 million in the recent Budget? Hon. Members who wish to intervene in that debate should attend at the end of the day next Wednesday.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is quite right and, in self-build week, he has managed to obtain an opportunity for an Adjournment debate that will highlight the support we are giving and the potential there is for people to increase our housing supply in this country through self-build. We do not do very well in comparison with many other countries and he is an advocate of our doing much more. I encourage Members who have the opportunity to do so to support my hon. Friend in his debate on this important subject.

Barry Sheerman: As we have been talking about petitions today, will the Leader of the House take account of the growing number of people from Huddersfield and Halifax who are signing the petition because they are deeply concerned about the possible closure of accident and emergency departments in those two towns? That is very important to them. May we have an urgent debate on what the hell is going on in A and E departments up and down our country?

Andrew Lansley: I know the hon. Gentleman will be aware that what is going on is that we are continuing to deliver high standards of care in A and E departments in circumstances where there is a consistently rising number of people attending. We need to do two things. We need to make sure that people are cared for effectively in the community to minimise their requirement to use A and E, and we need to focus A and E on the task that it needs to do. But when people go to A and E, we need to make sure that they go to an emergency department that has the skills and the capability to deal with their case, and what is available at present varies dramatically between locations. We need to ensure that people with the most serious conditions get to the emergency departments with a full range of capabilities to deal with them.

Tessa Munt: Each year more than 324,000 tenants are evicted in response to complaints they must make about the condition of their homes, so it is no surprise that 12% of private tenants do not report any problem for fear of retaliatory eviction. May we have a debate about stopping bad landlords dodging repairs when evicted tenants complain to their local councils, and giving tenants the right to appeal a notice to quit if it is a response to a problem, particularly as more than 1.3 million private rented homes do not meet the Government’s decent homes standard?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that our colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, through their review of property, have identified the extent to which there is a deficiency in the quality of the housing stock in part of the private rented sector. We want to make sure that people have good access to housing and that the housing is of good quality. I will, if I may, talk to my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government about when we might have an early opportunity for them to respond further in relation to that.

Stephen Doughty: Tomorrow I will be meeting veterans and beneficiaries of the Royal British Legion at the very well named 617 Squadron room at the new Penarth Pier pavilion in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming their work and find time for a debate on the importance of community covenants and strengthening community partnerships, such as this excellent work?

Andrew Lansley: I would like to take the opportunity to join the hon. Gentleman in our support for the community covenant and support for the communities who are backing up the military covenant in this way. It is important to recognise the sacrifice and the tremendous contribution that many people have made through their service in the armed services. I do not see an opportunity for a debate immediately, but there may be ere long further opportunities for us to highlight that in our own constituencies.

Andrew Bridgen: Two years ago, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I addressed the UK Trade and Industry Leicestershire chamber of commerce conference. In my speech I highlighted the need for business to look beyond the eurozone to emerging markets and our Commonwealth partners for export growth. Given that exports to India were up 20% last year and exports to China are now averaging £1 billion a year, may we have a debate on what steps the Government can take to further help UK business to export to new markets?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right. I applaud what he has done in Leicestershire to enable businesses to access the support and help of UKTI. Many Members will be aware that UKTI has significantly improved its offer to businesses, as was reflected recently in export week, but we know we have much more to do. If we can increase the proportion of businesses in this country, particularly small and medium-sized businesses, that are exporters, we can ensure that the recovery that we are seeing in the economy can be sustained for many years to come.

Angela Smith: I thank the Leader of the House for his kind words earlier, but I was disappointed by his response to the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) made about Royal Mail. Can I take it from his response that he does not think that the Government have any lessons to learn at all from the way that they handled the sale of Royal Mail?

Andrew Lansley: In relation to the business of the House, the hon. Lady will be well aware that both the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills and the Public Accounts Committee are looking at the issue, and no doubt they will bring forward reports, which I know that the Government will want to consider carefully and respond to. The reason why I was perhaps more dismissive of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) than of the hon. Lady’s perfectly proper question is that the hon. Gentleman’s question was based on a false assertion. The Royal Mail privatisation was achieved successfully. I know from my involvement in past privatisations, as a civil servant way back in the 1980s, that it is very difficult to get the price right at the initial public offering. It is normal for the privatised company subsequently to sell at a higher price than the one at which it was offered. It is very important to establish the price at which it can be underwritten, and to engage substantial investors to ensure that the bulk of the sale can be made.

Paul Uppal: I am sure that the Leader of the House will welcome, as I did over the Easter recess, the news that Wolverhampton Wanderers have been promoted to the championship. I am a stoic Wolves fan, but I am not asking for a debate on that, as it might be guillotined. Perhaps more pertinently, the Black Country local enterprise partnership has outlined a vision for regeneration in the area, and I warmly endorse two aspects of that vision. One is around the Wolverhampton interchange, and the second is around cultural capital investment in the city centre. May we have a debate on how LEPs, and this one in particular, facilitate regeneration in areas such as Wolverhampton?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I wish Wolverhampton Wanderers well; Wolves have a great history, and it may be that their future is getting better all the time. I am sure that he and many supporters of the club will be very encouraged by that. On his question about the Black Country LEP and many other LEPs, it is important to note that we are agreeing a whole range of city deals that are enabling locations across the country to identify what they believe will best assist in economic regeneration for the future. The same is true of applications to the regional growth fund. The LEP and the local authority are coming together, as my hon. Friend says, to define projects such as the interchange. That is very important, and it is important for them to make bids to the regional growth fund. There is £3 billion already committed to 430 schemes under that fund, and there is dramatic leveraging—something like a fivefold or sixfold leverage—of private sector investment as a consequence.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I recognise that there is intense interest, as always, in business questions. I simply remind the House that we have two important debates, under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, to follow. The first is on cervical cancer screening tests and the case of Sophie Jones, and the second is on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We must progress to those before too long, so I appeal for short questions and answers.

Lilian Greenwood: Two weeks ago, Imperial Tobacco announced its intention to close the Horizon factory in Lenton, with the loss of more than 500 jobs, leaving many of my constituents and their families reeling. Can the Leader of the House confirm which Department or Minister is co-ordinating the Government’s response and the resourcing of joint work by the city council, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Futures, the LEP and other partners? When will a Minister report to Parliament on the practical support to be offered to those affected by the shock decision?

Andrew Lansley: I can understand how the hon. Lady feels about the impact on her constituents. On those who will lose their jobs, ensuring that they can access new employment and, if necessary, retraining and the like is a responsibility for the Department for Work and Pensions. As for wider interests, and supporting the local enterprise partnership and local authorities in ensuring a broader economic development response, that is the responsibility of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I will ask both Departments to contact the hon. Lady about the steps that they are taking.

Mark Harper: I listened carefully when the Leader of the House announced the business for next Thursday. Perhaps he could add some time to the debate on the procedures of the House for discussing the Backbench Business Committee. He, I and the Chairman of the Committee could then explain to the shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), that it was not the Prime Minister who scrapped debates ahead of European Councils; this House unanimously decided, as a result of the Wright Committee recommendations, to give that time to the Backbench Business Committee. We could also suggest that having a debate before every European Council would not be welcome.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, the House took an important and positive decision to give Back-Bench Members, through the Backbench Business Committee, the opportunity to assess the relative priority of debates. I am not sure of the view of shadow Leader of the House on the matter, but I hope that she might have a word with the shadow Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas), to make it clear that trying to revert to the past will actually undermine the independence of the Backbench Business Committee and of Members of this House.

Luciana Berger: There are 48,000 homes in the private rented sector in Liverpool. All those tenants had been heartened by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when he said that he wants
	“longer fixed-term, family-friendly tenancies that meet their needs.”
	May we have an urgent statement about when the Government will honour that aspiration and support the proposals announced today by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to scrap letting fees, end excessive rent rises and introduce long-term tenancies?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Lady is saying that she supports what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is doing to promote flexibility, quality and supply in the housing
	market, I am pleased. I suspect, however, that what she is saying is that we do not want to go beyond that to a rent-control policy of the kind advocated by her leader. In that respect, she probably takes the same view as the shadow Housing Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), who said on “Channel 4 News” in January that
	“rent controls are not going to work in practice”.
	What the hon. Lady said was right then and it is right today.

Stuart Andrew: This morning, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and the National Children’s Bureau published a report analysing the UK’s poor record on child mortality compared with the rest of Europe. Yesterday, the Department of Health’s children and young people’s health outcomes forum also acknowledged that the UK has a historically poor child mortality record. May we have an urgent debate to consider how we can ensure that the UK is the best place not only to end life, but to begin life?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who will recall that, some two and a half or three years ago, I initiated work on how to improve health outcomes for children and young people, which led directly to the work of the children and young people’s health outcomes forum. It forms part of the NHS England mandate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has put in place and is a key part of Public Health England’s work. However, outcomes for children and young people depend on things far wider than what the health service does, such as being ready for school and avoiding periods when young people not in education, employment or training. Such measures are critical, which is why the Government are focused on them.

Keith Vaz: I do not know whether the Leader of the House likes mangos, but today marks the first day of the EU ban on the importation of Indian Alphonso mangos, a decision taken by Brussels without consultation with the House that will cost businesses in Leicester and beyond millions of pounds. May we have an urgent debate on the matter, with an action plan to get the ban reversed?

Mr Speaker: I have sampled the mango in question and can testify that it is extremely tasty.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker. Temporary restrictions are in place, as the right hon. Gentleman says, and are important to protecting home-grown salad crops—an important industry worth £320 million a year—from potential pests and diseases. India is a key trading partner, but we know that these temporary restrictions will impact only on a very small percentage of the successful business that we conduct with it. However, we are working with our Indian and European counterparts to resolve the issue.
	As for the business of the House, I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has secured a debate on the Adjournment at the close of business next Thursday that will allow him to raise his concerns with the House.

Tony Baldry: Now that we have five-year, fixed-term Parliaments, we are obviously in the longest general election campaign ever, and perhaps the business of the House should be changed to reflect that. Clearly the Leader of the Opposition is not going to ask the Prime Minister any questions on jobs, growth or the reduction in the deficit, so can we change Prime Minister’s questions so that the Leader of the Opposition can ask the Prime Minister three questions and then the Prime Minister can ask the Leader of the Opposition three questions? That way, we might have a proper examination of the fact that we have created 1.5 million new jobs, growth was up by 3% last year and the deficit has been halved.

Andrew Lansley: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but I fear that it is not one we will take up. When the Leader of the Opposition asks his six questions, often what he leaves out speaks volumes, and I think that will inform the public as he continues to be bereft of anything to say on Labour’s plans for the economy.

Valerie Vaz: We all rightly condemn the abduction of more than 200 girls from their school in Nigeria, so may we have an urgent debate on how Britain can help to ensure that they are returned to their rightful place, which is with their families and, more particularly, are in education?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. We will all have been horrified by what we have seen and by the continuing trauma that those girls and their families and friends must be experiencing. We will do everything we can to help. I will of course speak with my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether they can advise Members on what more can be done.

Pauline Latham: May we have a debate on what the Government are doing to recognise, assist and support businesses that focus on energy efficiency, such as the Vaillant Group—Glow-worm, as it is better known locally—which has a base and factory in my constituency?

Andrew Lansley: The Vaillant Group is very well known. We are doing a great deal to promote the important energy efficiency sector, which is already worth more than £18 billion and employs over 130,000 people in this country. It is economically important to my hon. Friend’s constituents and many others. Indeed, the installation of more efficient gas boilers, the green deal, the energy obligations and the product policy in building regulations are all promoting renewable heating technologies through the world-first renewable heat incentive.

Jonathan Ashworth: I was delighted to learn a few minutes ago that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has secured an Adjournment debate on the mango ban, which is causing considerable concern for businesses in my part of Leicester as well. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to ensure that we can bring a delegation of businesses affected to the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ahead of that debate?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always try to assist Members of the House in whatever way I can. I will certainly see whether Ministers would be willing to have such a meeting in that time frame.

Mark Pawsey: This coming week I will join a party led by the mayor of Rugby on a visit to the Menin Gate memorial to remember local people who lost their lives in the great war, reciprocating the visit made by Field Marshal John French, the Early of Ypres, who unveiled Rugby’s memorial in 1922. Can our commemorations here in Parliament include a debate on the links between our constituencies and where our brave soldiers lost their lives?

Andrew Lansley: As I told the House at the last business questions, I hope to be in a position to announce a further debate in which Members can talk about how their constituents are commemorating the events of 100 years ago, as I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents are doing. I was very proud to have an opportunity to visit a village in my constituency only last Friday where they are planning a publication that details each person who died in service during the first world war and tells their story, including where they fell and where they are commemorated.

Julie Hilling: The Minister for Civil Society recently said that it was “okay” to lose some of the youth services that have been slashed due to Government cuts because—excuse me, Mr Speaker—they were “crap” in the first place. May we have a debate in Government time on the devastating cuts to services for young people, which will also give the Minister an opportunity to explain his disgraceful and derogatory remarks?

Andrew Lansley: I do not remember reading those remarks and I do not know precisely the context in which my hon. Friend spoke. However, because I know him very well, I know that he is a devoted advocate of supporting civil society, charitable organisations and community groups in providing high-quality services, including to children and young people. I will alert him to what the hon. Lady has said and give him an opportunity to respond.

Philip Hollobone: According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Northamptonshire is officially the most enterprising county in the country. May I share with the Leader of the House the good news from the latest economic review by Northamptonshire chamber of commerce for the first quarter of this year? It says that 78% of manufacturers in the county report increased export sales and that over 90% of manufacturing and service sector firms expect turnover and profitability to stay the same or to improve over the coming year. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House about why counties such as Northamptonshire are leading this country out of the great recession?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know from personal experience of meeting business people in his constituency that those in Northamptonshire are indeed very enterprising—although I imagine that the title he claims will be hotly contested in this House. His
	question is apt, because this week we have seen evidence from the latest first-quarter GDP growth data that manufacturing is the fastest growing sector of the economy. That is in marked contrast with what happened under the previous Labour Government, when manufacturing employment was cut by 1 million and there was a focus on financial services to the detriment of manufacturing.

Barry Gardiner: Last month the Government were absolutely right to give the go-ahead to the new power station at Hinkley Point, at a cost to the consumer of £92.50 per megawatt. May we have a debate on consistency in Government subsidy, given that last week they announced that it would be unfair and insupportable to give a subsidy to onshore wind, which costs between £70 and £80 per megawatt?

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman will recall from a response from the Prime Minister at yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, the point about the build-out of onshore wind farms is that the Government set a target to increase onshore wind farms and renewables generation, and it is not necessary, in our view, to keep providing a subsidy to go beyond that. The point about nuclear is that it is a different form of generation. It is, as it were, the bedrock of security of supply, and it is important to ensure that it is there.

David Heath: The tourism industry is absolutely essential to the south-west, yet operators in my constituency say that even now they are getting phone calls from people who are convinced we are still under water. May we have a statement before the bank holiday—I appreciate that that probably means the tourism Minister coming back here this afternoon—to tell the world that the floods have gone; that the railways are mended; that the food, drink, countryside and welcome are as great as ever; and that Somerset and the west country are very much open for business?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes the point very well, and I hope that people will listen to it. He is absolutely right. The railway line has reopened and the waters have receded. People have gone to enormous trouble to rebuild and recover, and Somerset and the west country are open for business. I was very pleased over the Easter holiday to see evidence of people who were really enjoying themselves in the west country. I hope that people will have sunshine this weekend so as to have an opportunity to enjoy themselves again.

Diana Johnson: For the benefit of the UK Independence party donor who said this week that women should be banned from wearing trousers, may we please have a debate on the historic contribution that women in trousers have made to this country, including Amy Johnson from Hull, who wore trousers as an aviator, the women’s Land Army in the second world war, and Princess Elizabeth, who wore trousers as a mechanic serving in the second world war?

Andrew Lansley: Well, good for her. I cannot promise a debate, but I entirely endorse the hon. Lady’s sentiments.

Glyn Davies: Bowel cancer is often a completely curable disease, but a key to successful treatment is early diagnosis. May we have an
	urgent statement about the effectiveness of bowel cancer screening programmes, particularly in relation to access to colonoscopies, and a comparison between the effectiveness of bowel cancer screening services in Wales and in England so that we can gain best practice?

Andrew Lansley: I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond in detail, particularly on the point about comparisons. We should be very pleased that during this Parliament we have seen the roll-out of the bowel cancer screening programme across England. We look forward very positively to being able to roll out flexible sigmoidoscopy, as we plan over the next three years, which will enable not only early diagnosis of bowel cancer but early interventions. That will make a further big, positive step forward.

Heidi Alexander: May I ask the Leader of the House for a statement or a debate in Government time on the operation of the Access to Work scheme? I recently met a constituent who faces losing her job because she cannot pay through the scheme for a qualified British sign language interpreter. This is a very important and urgent matter on which Members need to be able to question Ministers.

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Lady will know, through the Work programme and the new Help to Work scheme, further details of which were announced this week, we are focusing on ensuring that we give everybody, including those whom it has clearly been most difficult to help, the support that is necessary to enable them to get back into work. However, she has raised a particular, and interesting, issue. I hope that she might give my office further details, and I will ask a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions to respond.

Rehman Chishti: The Leader of the House will know that I previously presented a Bill to the House that considers increasing the sentence for those who cause death while driving when they have been disqualified from driving from the current two years to 14 years, in line with the sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. I know that the Government were sympathetic to what I said then. Will the Leader of the House clarify whether they have taken a decision on the Bill prior to next week’s debate on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend is right that the Government do indeed share his concern about those who drive while disqualified and cause death or serious injury on our roads. He will know from my statement that the first day on Report of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill will be on Monday 12 May. I direct him to that debate, where I know he will be in his place to hear the response from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice.

Debbie Abrahams: One and a half million pounds worth of donations to the Tory party from private health care providers resulted in £1.5 billion—

Andrew Lansley: indicated dissent.

Debbie Abrahams: There is evidence. The Leader of the House is shaking his head, but I have cast-iron evidence. Those donations resulted in £1.5 billion-worth of NHS contracts going to those same providers. Will arrange a statement to explain why the Government are refusing to exempt the NHS from the EU-US trade negotiations, thereby threatening the future of the NHS as we know it—or is that also linked to those donations?

Andrew Lansley: I scarcely know where to begin in refuting that nonsense. First, donations to the Conservative party do not result in contracts—they simply do not. It is a complete travesty and a disgrace to suggest that the people who take procurement decisions within the NHS would be influenced in any way—or, frankly, know whether the individuals associated with any particular company happened to have political affiliations or otherwise.
	On the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations, I wish that Labour Members—this was evidenced during our debate on the subject—would focus on the dramatic potential for increasing trade, jobs and growth in Europe and America rather than trying to focus on something that will not have the effect that the hon. Lady describes, because within the NHS there is already, as there was under her party’s Government before the last election, scope for private companies in America to access contracts if they are able to provide the best services inside the United Kingdom.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 1306?
	[That this House notes that Essex County Council is turning off street lights across Essex between the hours of midnight and 5am to make savings; further notes that turning off street lights in Harlow affects many Harlow residents, many of whom work late shifts; acknowledges that some Harlow residents have expressed concerns that they feel unsafe; and therefore calls on Essex County Council to review its decision and shorten the amount of time that street lights are turned off each night in Harlow.]
	My right hon. Friend will be aware that Essex county council is turning off the street lights in Harlow between the hours of midnight and 5 am. This is affecting many residents, particularly females and shift workers late at night. Will he look at this issue and contact the Department for Communities and Local Government to see what can be done to extend the hours that the lights are on, and may we have a debate on it?

Andrew Lansley: I understand the point my hon. Friend is making and he will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is also aware of it, as shown in a reply he gave during Question Time yesterday. Street lighting is the responsibility of the local highways authorities, including Essex county council in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government advise that, when considering its street-lighting needs—including when considering turning them off—an authority should work closely with the emergency services and other key partners on community safety.

Dan Jarvis: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), the Leader of the House will know that the country will be looking to Parliament to play our part
	in the world war one commemorations, and I know that Members on both sides of the House will wish to do so. We had a very good debate in this place last year, but this year many of the key anniversaries fall during the summer recess, so may I ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate before the summer recess, so that Parliament can be given the opportunity to pay its own tribute to those who served us 100 years ago?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman is right and I hope to be able to announce such a debate before the summer recess. Since our last debate on the subject I, like many Members throughout the House, have seen great evidence of how constituents are proposing to commemorate the events of 100 years ago.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the remaining Members to ask succinct, single-sentence questions so that we might proceed to the next debate ere long?

Jim Shannon: The Keep Sunday Special campaign has insisted there should be no change to Sunday shop opening hours and it is supported by the Home Retail Group and the workers. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate to put this matter to rest for retailers and workers?

Andrew Lansley: I am not aware of the plans to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I cannot promise a debate, but I will check to see whether there is any way in which we can provide him with the reassurance he seeks.

Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to report to the House when she will be taking the next step in delivering a modern slavery Bill? She asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to set up a cross-party Joint Committee and it has just reported after 10 weeks of work. We need to build a consensus for a modern slavery Bill, which we promised on the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce’s Bill.

Andrew Lansley: We are very grateful to the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not in a position at this stage to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.

Stephen McCabe: The Leader of the House must have been dismayed with the compensation award made to convicted triple killer Kevan Thakrar. Given that the Government have a bit of time on their hands, why do they not introduce a short, simple Bill that says that any future awards of that kind must be paid directly to a special fund for victims?

Andrew Lansley: Other Members will have been just as dismayed about that. I am not sure whether what the hon. Gentleman suggests is the right solution. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice to respond to the hon. Gentleman with his views.

Graham Jones: Yesterday the Government issued a ministerial statement on fixed odds betting terminals, which resulted in a sharp rise in bookmakers’ share value. When will Members get an opportunity to debate the proposals in full? I hope it will be before the Whitsun recess.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot at this stage say that there will be a debate on those issues, but it is important that the written ministerial statement said positive things about providing safeguards in relation to fixed odds, high-stakes betting terminals. It also said what I think communities will regard as very encouraging things about how local planning authorities can make their own judgments about the extent of change of use with regard to betting shops on local high streets.

Sharon Hodgson: Could we have a debate on long-term unemployment? In my constituency, the number of over-25s on jobseeker’s allowance for more than two years has risen by 41% in the past year alone. The rate is now the eighth highest in England and Wales. Instead of recognising that their Work programme is failing, Ministers now want to punish my constituents even further with yet another of their silly schemes, which has been shown not to work. Instead, they should implement Labour’s compulsory jobs guarantee, which I guarantee would work.

Andrew Lansley: As I have said, I hope there might be an opportunity for a debate on employment, if not before then during the debate on the Queen’s Speech, which might include a proper focus on it. That would enable us to celebrate the fact that there is a record level of employment; that employment is up by more than 1.5 million since the general election; that youth unemployment is down 38,000 on the previous quarter and lower than at the time of the election; and that the proportion of 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training is at its lowest in five years.

Nick Smith: Could we have an oral statement on the inspectorate of constabulary report, which says that police are failing to record up to 20% of crime? The situation is intolerable.

Andrew Lansley: The Home Secretary rightly commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to undertake that inquiry and is very clear that we want to ensure that police-recorded crime figures are robust. Those figures and the independent crime survey point strongly to the same conclusion, which is that levels of crime are falling and policing is working. On debating the HMIC report, the hon. Gentleman will know that it is an interim report, so the Home Secretary will no doubt report to the House in due course.

Madeleine Moon: Could we have a debate on the excellent review of diagnosis and treatment carried out by the Pernicious Anaemia Society, which is based in Bridgend? Pernicious anaemia involves memory loss, poor concentration, debilitating tiredness, personality and balance problems and mood swings. Two thirds of those who responded to the review were unhappy with their current treatment. That is diabolical. May we have an urgent debate on the issue?

Andrew Lansley: I can well understand how strongly the hon. Lady feels about pernicious anaemia, which she rightly describes as a very debilitating condition. I will ask my colleagues at the Department of Health to respond to her about the position generally. She and other Members might like to seek an Adjournment debate in order to raise the issues.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Cervical Cancer Screening

Steve Rotheram: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the e-petition relating to the tragic death of Sophie Jones from cervical cancer; believes that the Government should urgently issue guidance stipulating that all women should have the choice of taking a smear test regardless of their age and in consultation with their doctor; and further notes that the best way to combat cervical cancer is by increasing awareness of its symptoms so as to ensure that early diagnosis rates are driven up, doctors and nurses understand that although it is very rare, younger women can develop cervical cancer, and high levels of coverage among young girls of the HPV vaccination programme introduced in 2008 are achieved.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important debate to the Floor of the House, although I wish it was not under such tragic circumstances. The number of MPs present does not necessarily reflect the wider public interest in the issue. Perhaps that shows that many MPs have lots of competing interests and that many who would have liked to have been here today are, unfortunately, unable to attend.
	I want to place on record my thanks to members of the Backbench Business Committee, skilfully chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for listening to the voices of the tens of thousands of people who wanted this issue debated, and to the Leader of the House for recognising the considerable national interest in it. I also thank the Liverpool Echo, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Mail for their continued coverage of Sophie’s case and the steps they have taken to raise awareness of this debate and, more importantly, the issue of screening and the early identification of symptoms, which I will go into in more detail during my contribution.
	I want to place on record my gratitude to Sophie’s mum, Peri, and to each and every one of the 321,925 people who signed the online petition following the heartbreaking death of her daughter earlier this year. They made history in the process by accumulating the largest ever number of signatories to a Government e-petition.
	There has been a lot of speculation and conjecture about what is actually being requested today, but my motion, seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West—

Alison McGovern: South!

Steve Rotheram: Sorry—she will kill me for that!
	The motion is clear in its intent. I am not calling for the introduction of routine cervical screening for all women and young girls under 25, but I am calling on the Government to issue guidance that stipulates that all women should be able to request a cervical smear regardless of their age. Put simply, young women and teenage girls who present to their GP with possible symptoms of cervical cancer should have the choice, if they so desire, to have a smear test, but that must of course go hand in hand with extensive consultation with their GP to ensure that they are informed of all the potential consequences of the procedure. Given the
	limited number of cervical cancer cases in women under the age of 25—just 47 in England in 2011, according to Department of Health figures—such an option would not open the floodgates to thousands of unnecessary, costly or possibly damaging tests for young girls.
	The motion is an attempt to promote the issue, and to encourage the medical profession to take up the provision that is already available to doctors of granting screening tests to females of any age in exceptional circumstances. It must be said that some of the medical profession are clearly not exercising that power, and that has proven fatal in cases such as Sophie’s. Indeed, at the heart of the motion is one simple premise—that a woman of any age over 16 should, through written departmental guidance, have the right to make an informed choice for themselves.
	I will highlight areas in which I believe the Government could take immediate action to educate and inform both patients and medical professionals better about the symptoms and diagnosis of cervical cancer in young women and teenage girls, but I want to make it clear that I am very much of the opinion that any changes to age restrictions must be evidence-based.
	Sophie Jones was a much-loved and popular 19-year-old girl from the Wirral who had her whole life ahead of her. She had fashioned a successful career in modelling, and was described by her twin sister Ashleigh as
	“the life and soul of everything”.
	In 2013, after experiencing constant stomach cramps for more than a year, Sophie visited her GP. She advised her doctor of her symptoms and asked for a smear test. Sophie knew that something was seriously wrong, but she was continually refused a test solely on the basis of her age. Instead, Sophie’s GP incorrectly diagnosed her with Crohn’s disease. Last November, Sophie was forced to enter hospital permanently, due to the deterioration in her health and the escalation of her condition. Despite that, numerous doctors still failed to recognise her symptoms or to diagnose her illness accurately.
	Eventually, Sophie and her family’s worst nightmares were confirmed when she was diagnosed with cancer of the cervix. Tragically, by the time doctors were able to make an affirmative diagnosis, it was too late. The cancer had spread to other parts of her body, and by then she was terminally ill. For four months, Sophie fought against her devastating disease and, with her family and friends alongside her at her hospital bed, fought bravely to the end. On 15 March, after four long and excruciating months, Sophie’s defences were overwhelmed by her condition and she lost her struggle for life.
	There was a time in Britain when a cancer diagnosis struck the fear of God into people, but thanks to advances in medical treatments and preventive measures, early diagnosis ensures that cancer patients survive in more than half of cases. Cancer is no longer a death sentence if caught early enough. Sophie’s diagnosis came too late for treatment to be successful, but it should never have been that way. That is what makes her case so painful for her family and friends.
	I know that I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) when I pay tribute to Sophie’s family and friends for the dignity that they have shown, and for their determination to highlight Sophie’s story to prevent anyone else from ever having to go through
	what they have been through. Sophie was failed by the current system, and that should not be allowed to happen to anyone again.
	Moreover, I am confident that Sophie’s case is not an isolated incident. I am aware of other cases, and other Members will speak about cases that have been brought to their attention. Those cases include that of Maryanne Makepeace, who was told that she had a water infection, before she was finally diagnosed with terminal cancer.
	Just last week, the BBC in Wales reported the case of 20-year-old Jessica Bradford, who was also told by her GP that she was too young for cancer. Initially, she was diagnosed with thrush, with the doctor believing that she had a sexually transmitted disease, but Jessica was eventually diagnosed with cancer of the cervix. She has been told that she is now infertile, having undergone radiotherapy and chemotherapy. That is one example of how a woman exercising her right to a test resulted in her being given treatment, which I hope will lead to a full and complete recovery.
	Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer worldwide. It is the 11th most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the UK, amounting to about three in every 100,000 women, according to the crude mortality rate of Cancer Research UK. There are, on average, just short of 1,000 deaths from cervical cancer each year in the UK. Three women are diagnosed with the disease every day.
	As Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust points out, almost all cases of cervical cancer are caused by the persistent high-risk human papilloma virus. The NHS guidance on the HPV vaccine indicates that 99% of cervical cancers are caused by an HPV infection, and that four out of five sexually active adults will come into contact with it during their lives. The condition is not one that solely women can get; men also carry the HPV virus. The thing is that many people do not necessarily present with any particular symptoms.
	It is worth highlighting the other risk factors that can affect a woman’s propensity to develop cervical cancer. They include smoking, as carcinogens weaken the immune system and leave the individual more likely to attract an infection of the cervix, as well as unprotected sexual activity at an early age, teenage pregnancy, multiple births, decreased immunity in women receiving immunosuppressant drugs and, in some cases, mothers given the DES—diethylstilbestrol—infertility drug when pregnant. Some medical opinion suggests that long-term use of the contraceptive pill, for instance for more than 10 years, can slightly increase the risk of developing cervical cancer, although I am sure there is consensus that the benefits of the pill far outweigh the risks for most women.
	The previous Labour Government’s decision to introduce the HPV vaccination programme was extremely apposite. It has saved and will continue to save many thousands of lives across the country. However, we must be relentless in rolling out the vaccination programme in our schools and colleges. Typically, year 8 girls—those aged 12 and 13—are offered the vaccination, and the take-up rate is about 80%. The vaccination offers protection against their developing the condition in later life. A catch-up programme was also introduced by the previous Government in 2009-10, in which almost 1 million girls aged between 12 and 18 were vaccinated. The continued roll-out of vaccination in girls before they become sexually
	active will greatly decrease the chances of their contracting the infection, and it will increase the chances for cervical cancer survival.
	As many as 2,800 women a year are diagnosed with cervical cancer, and more than a third of sufferers die each year because of the failure to catch the cancer through early diagnosis. It is impossible for women on their own to detect abnormalities in cervical cells, but symptoms that seem inconsequential when taken in isolation can amount to a clear indication of cancer of the cervix when assessed cumulatively. Those include abnormal bleeding during or after sexual intercourse or between periods, post-menopausal bleeding if a woman is not on hormone replacement therapy or has stopped it for six weeks, unusual and/or unpleasant vaginal discharge, discomfort or pain during sex, and lower back pain. As the cancer develops, it can cause additional symptoms such as frequent urination, blood in the urine, rectal bleeding, diarrhoea, incontinence and lower-limb lymphoedema.

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend is giving an excellent description of the symptoms that everyone should be aware of. It is refreshing to hear a man talking about the symptoms of women’s cancers. Does he agree that one thing that we can definitely do today is raise the awareness of those symptoms and encourage men and women to understand more about women’s cancers?

Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. In all honesty, I did not know an awful lot of this information before I was asked to head up the campaign in the Backbench Business Committee to get this matter debated in the House. I suspect that the same is true of many male colleagues on both sides of the House and many men in the wider public. We must destigmatise the use of words like “period” or “vaginal discharge” by men, because it is important that such things can be spoken about openly. As the father of two daughters, I certainly want them to be aware of the symptoms of this condition, so that they can bring them to my attention and I can help and guide them should they need a consultation with the GP. This is an important matter for us to debate in the Chamber. I am sure that other colleagues will go into the symptoms of this horrible disease.
	The danger of highlighting the symptoms is that some women might misdiagnose themselves, causing them unnecessary worry. Conversely, if doing so means that one person with the symptoms is diagnosed with cervical cancer and has her life saved, it is well worth it.
	According to the NHS figures, the vast majority of women’s test results come back normal. For about one in 20 women, the test will show some abnormalities in the cells of the cervix. Most of those changes will not lead to cervical cancer and the cells often return to normal on their own. Indeed, that is particularly true of young patients. In some cases, the abnormal cells need to be removed so that they cannot become cancerous.
	About 3,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed each year in the UK, which amounts to 2% of all cancers diagnosed in women. As I have stated, cases of cervical cancer in women under 25 years of age are extremely rare. They amount to about 1% of all cervical cancer sufferers in England. However, the relatively small
	number of occurrences should not be dismissed as statistically negligible. The mission of the NHS cervical screening programme is
	“to reduce the number of women who develop cervical cancer and the number of women who die from it.”
	The screening programme is credited with saving the lives of about 5,000 cancer patients a year across the board.
	In 2004, the last Labour Government increased the age at which young females could have a test from 20 to 25, in accordance with international recommendations from the World Health Organisation. America has adopted the position that a test should happen at 20 years of age or within three years of first sexual activity, whichever comes earlier. To me, that seems an appropriately flexible policy to have. It is estimated that early detection and treatment prevents up to 75% of cervical cancers. The contention centres on the appropriate age at which screening should become routine and on the health consequences for somebody who chooses to have a test before the recommended age of 25.
	So that I am not accused of presenting an imbalanced view of the medical thinking on this issue, I should say that there is an opinion among some professionals that smear tests on young women and teenage girls can lead to false positives, unnecessary treatment, anxiety for the patient, infertility or pre-term delivery later in life. There can also be discomfort, embarrassment or, less commonly, pain during the screening test. There is a very small chance of getting incorrect results, which could lead to abnormalities being missed or to unnecessary distress and treatment. There is also a chance of unnecessary treatment occurring if the abnormalities would have corrected themselves naturally. Some of the treatments that are used to remove abnormal cells may increase the risk of premature delivery in pregnancy.
	Undoubtedly, there is still extensive debate in the medical profession about whether tests on young women would have the desired impact. In 2009, the British Medical Journal released a paper on the effectiveness of cervical screening with age, which concluded:
	“Cervical screening in women aged 20-24 has little or no impact on rates of invasive cervical cancer up to age 30. Some uncertainly still exists regarding its impact on advanced stage tumours in women under age 30. By contrast, screening older women leads to a substantial reduction in incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer.”
	For that reason, it is important to reiterate that the motion does not call for routine screening for under-25s.
	I believe that it is the duty of any Health Minister to adhere to the medical advice that is presented to the Department. To my knowledge, no new evidence has emerged that is substantial enough to change the Government’s position on screening ages. I believe that, at this juncture, it would be prudent to follow the decision of the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening in 2009 to reaffirm the policy that the age for routine screening should remain at 25. However, although it is right that politicians should not ride roughshod over medical experts, it is the job of Health Ministers to examine the orthodoxy of the day, to keep matters such as age restrictions under constant review if new evidence emerges and to scrutinise international patterns and comparisons.
	I must mention that I am not a medical expert. My opinions are predicated on what I have read and learned about the subject. The debates on either side of the screening argument need to be qualified by further research. I believe that there are steps that the Minister can take right now to address those concerns and the concerns that have been highlighted by Sophie’s death. For me, the Minister should get to work on five things immediately.
	First, the Government should address the online advice and guidance that is available to young women and girls who suspect that they have the symptoms of cervical cancer. At present, it is far from adequate. In the course of my research for this debate, I was amazed at the total non-existence of good online advice for young women who suspect that they are displaying the symptoms of cervical cancer. Despite young people having a higher propensity to use the internet to access information than most adults over the age of 30, there is an absence of advice on what steps should be taken by young people who are concerned that they are exhibiting the symptoms and on the support that is available. On the NHS “Your health, your choices” website, there is no mention of what young girls or teenagers should do. Instead, there is a vague information section on smear tests for over-25s. Users of the Public Health England website are forced to wade through pages and pages of material and to follow hyperlink after hyperlink before they finally find the information that they need in the frequently asked questions section. It appears that some of the information online—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I was very reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has been going on for over 23 minutes. Other Members wish to speak and there are other debates today. The guidance is that Members should speak for 10 to 15 minutes, so I have given him a lot of latitude. I would be grateful if he thought about speeding through his points so that we can move on to another speaker.

Steve Rotheram: That is not as I was informed, Madam Deputy Speaker, so apologies if I have overrun my time limit. I was told absolutely the opposite. I will try to conclude, and I will contact the Minister in writing with any points that I miss out.
	Whatever is said and decided today, this debate needs to be the beginning of the process, not the end. I said when I made my application to the Backbench Business Committee on 8 April that I was there as a spokesperson for the 320,000 signatories to the “Sophie’s choice” petition. Today, I have presented their case, which is a case for women’s right to choose, for clearer medical guidance for patients and professionals, for improvements to the sex and relationships education system—I will inform the Minister about that in writing—and for immediate action to tackle the blind spot that exists in the vaccination programme for 19 to 24-year-olds.
	We must not forget that it was the people who put this debate on the Floor of the House today, and now it is time for the Government to listen to the British public and act. In their name, let us ensure that Sophie’s legacy is a life-saving one, so that her family and friends can take comfort from the fact that despite failings of the highest order in her case, Sophie did not die in vain.

John Baron: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate. Needless to say, all our thoughts go out to Sophie’s family and friends at this time of loss.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly focused on the importance of early diagnosis, which is crucial with not just cervical cancer but cancer in general. I hope, in a relatively brief speech, to remind the House of the importance of the figures that the Government are due to publish soon—one-year cancer survival rates broken down by clinical commissioning group. I and fellow Members of the all-party group on cancer believe that those figures could have a transformative effect in encouraging earlier diagnosis, thereby saving literally thousands of lives.
	The recent period has been interesting, because we have had both good news and bad news on cancer. The good news is that, as Cancer Research UK announced only a few days ago, 50% of those diagnosed with cancer now are likely to make it to 10 years following diagnosis, which is twice the survival rate that existed back in the 1970s. That is extremely positive. The bad news is that in this country, shamefully, one in four cancers are still first diagnosed as late as when somebody goes to A and E. It is of further shame that figures suggest that if we were to match European averages for cancer survival rates—just the averages—we could save an additional 5,000 lives a year. If we believe the OECD’s figures, if we were to match international averages—again, just the averages—we could save up to 10,000 lives a year. That shows clearly that we have a long way to go and that early diagnosis is crucial. The all-party group describes it as cancer’s magic key. There are very few magic keys in life, with which we can open the door and find that there is suddenly a plethora of riches in front of us, but a magic key does exist for cancer, and it is early diagnosis.

Katy Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is huge regional variation in cancer survival rates? In areas such as the one that I represent, where we have high levels of poverty and deprivation, survival rates are a lot worse than elsewhere, so we have massive challenges before us.

John Baron: The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, which leads me neatly on to the report that the all-party group produced back in 2009 on reducing cancer inequalities—I should perhaps declare an interest as the chairman of the group. The report, which was extensive and took in much written and oral evidence, found that this country’s health care system stood as much chance as any other of getting patients from the one-year point to the five-year point after diagnosis. However, where we fell down was on getting them to the one-year point in the first place. That suggests that the NHS is as good as any other health care system at treating cancer once it is detected, but very poor at detecting it. That underperformance in diagnosing cancer means that we trail other health care systems. We never catch up from that original loss.
	Comparisons are always dangerous. When we compare our system with that in France, for example, we are comparing it with centres of excellence, so we have to be careful in our comparisons. However, the figures of
	5,000 lives a year that could be saved if we matched European averages and 10,000 that could be saved if we met international averages are generally accepted. They can largely be accounted for by the early phase, when we fail to pick up cancer early enough and so do not get enough people to the one-year point after diagnosis.
	The all-party group therefore decided to ask how we could focus the NHS on earlier diagnosis. We have been laser-like and dogged in our campaign on that front.

Jane Ellison: indicated assent.

John Baron: The Minister is nodding—kindly, I think. I thank her for that in one respect.
	The solution that the all-party group came up with was to focus on outcomes. We could bombard the NHS with a lot of targets to try to encourage earlier diagnosis, but instead we decided to focus on one outcome measure—the one-year survival rate, broken down by CCG—as a driver towards earlier diagnosis.

Alison McGovern: Given some of the specific details that we have heard, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the all-party group’s approach of not setting a lot of targets but instead focusing on outcomes might enable groups of GPs to make themselves more aware of symptoms that have been missed in the case that we have discussed and in similar cases?

John Baron: That is absolutely right. When it comes to cervical cancer, all the figures suggest that if it is caught early, 95% to 98% of patients can reach the one-year point. That figure falls away significantly if it is not caught early enough. The hon. Lady is right that the idea behind one-year survival rates, broken down by CCG, is to encourage earlier diagnosis. It is intended to encourage CCGs to introduce local initiatives to address the points that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton made about late diagnosis. We all know that late diagnosis makes for poor one-year figures, so putting the one-year figures up in lights, broken down by CCG, means that we can see clearly which CCGs are underperforming. The cancer community and politicians can therefore come together and put pressure on those CCGs to raise their game.
	As the hon. Member for Wirral South suggests, there could be a range of initiatives, such as better awareness campaigns, whether on cervical or other cancers, better diagnostics in primary care or better GP training—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton made the point that the GP in the case in question missed the diagnosis. There could be a range of local measures, and to answer the point that the hon. Member for Wirral South made, it would be up to the CCG to tailor-make those initiatives to address the needs of its individual area. That is what those figures are about and, for the first time, we will have the opportunity to hold underperforming CCGs to account when it comes to late diagnosis. Late diagnosis makes for poor one-year figures, and when those figures are broken down by CCG, we will know which ones are failing to do more to raise their game on early diagnosis.
	In conclusion, I have one or two questions for the Minister. First, I managed to secure from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Questions an assurance that the one-year figures will be published in June. I
	asked that question because those figures were due out in January but then postponed to the spring, I think, and then postponed again. Will the Minister assure the House that we are still on course for their publication in June this year?
	Secondly—the Minister knows what is coming— can we throw any more light on how we can hold underperforming CCGs to account? There is no point in having one-year cancer survival figures broken down by CCG if there are no systems in place to ensure that CCGs that underperform are held accountable and encouraged to raise their game. There is no point having the tools in the toolbox if we do nothing with them. Will the Minister enlighten the House about whether there has been any further thought on that issue since we last raised it in this place back in February?
	I know that the all-party group’s report, “Cancer Across the Domains”, is on the Minister’s desk at the moment, and I hope she will say a few words about how quickly we will get a response—we look forward to that. In direct relevance to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton about GPs and the challenges of improving earlier diagnosis, will the Minister say whether there are any other initiatives by the Department of Health or NHS England to look at earlier diagnosis, apart from the one-year figures? For example, GPs are recompensed through the quality and outcomes framework system, and I think I am right in suggesting that the QOF system deals with everything when it comes to cancer post-diagnosis, but there is nothing to encourage earlier diagnosis.
	Finally, I mention briefly the all-party group’s reception on 8 July, which will highlight the importance of those one-year figures. In summary, for the first time we will have the tools in the toolbox to hold underperforming CCGs accountable when it comes to earlier diagnosis. We must make use of those tools, and the cancer community, politicians, and everyone else must be aware of their importance—I am confident that they will be. If we embrace the concept fully and focus on outcomes and the one-year figures, we have the potential to save, quite literally, thousands of lives a year in this country.

Alison McGovern: It is an honour to contribute to this important debate, and I welcome to the House of Commons today Sophie’s mum, Peri, her sisters Chelsea and Ashleigh, and other members of her family. I have been very proud to be involved in this campaign to highlight what happened to Sophie, who was my constituent. I think I am right in saying that this has been the biggest ever e-petition, which I think represents a real change in the way we do our politics in this country. Long gone are the days when only certain people in this place could call on us to hold debates here and only the Government said what we would talk about. In Sophie’s name, her very many friends and family have brought us here to talk about these issues today. That is a massively important change in our politics, alongside the important issue we are discussing.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)—even though he keeps saying that I am the hon. Member for Wirral West, which I am
	not; I’ll have a row with him about that later—on having initiated this extremely important debate. As I have said before, it is very important for men in Britain, as well as women, to care about women’s cancers, and I will say more about that and about awareness. I make a plea, however, for all my male colleagues, as dads, brothers and friends of women as much as anything else, to ensure that they know the symptoms of cervical cancer and other women’s cancers, and to support their sisters, friends and mums if they have any concerns. That is important.
	I begin my contribution by borrowing the words of Peri, Sophie’s mum, which she has allowed me to do. She characterised what Sophie was like in a really brilliant way:
	“She was an amazing daughter, sister, girlfriend and friend, a live wire with a huge heart, the glue that held our family together. Her attitude to life was to live it to the best and her positivity shone through to everyone so as you couldn’t help but smile”.
	I think those are lovely words about Sophie, and it is in her name that we all come here today. I know I represent all my constituents when I offer their condolences to Sophie’s friends and family, and I feel sure that the many thousands of people who signed the e-petition did so because they wanted to show that they cared about what happened to her. Members might be interested to know that friends and family have also organised fundraising events—they did so before Sophie died—and are taking care of all her family. That is a truly great thing.
	Sophie had high aspirations for her life, and she had hopes and plans. She was clearly a vibrant, clever, beautiful young woman with her whole life ahead of her. She attended her GP surgery as she had been suffering for months with symptoms such as stomach pains and various things, and it seems that her request for a smear test was refused on the basis of her age. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has gone through those issues in some detail. It seems that Sophie was diagnosed with Crohn’s disease, but her health continued to deteriorate until she was eventually diagnosed with cervical cancer and very tragically died in March, just 19 years old.
	The disease is rare in younger women, but in this case a smear test would have been important. Sadly, this is not the first case to come to light in which a young woman has died of cervical cancer following such events. Mercedes Curnow died aged 23 in 2011, and reports suggest that she too had requested a smear test. Another young woman, Becky Ryder, was 26. Thankfully, such cases are few and far between, and we are grateful for that; none the less we will all understand the tragic scenario that friends and family face when a young woman faces such a serious disease. Even though the numbers are relatively small, it is important that we take the issue seriously.
	Approximately 3,000 cases of cervical cancer are diagnosed in the United Kingdom every year. While there are groups of people such as women under 25 among whom cervical cancer is rare, it does occur. I understand that there are approximately 2.5 cases of cervical cancer for every 100,000 women under 25 years old. It is thankfully rare, but very serious for those people who face it. How can we help GPs to pick up the symptoms of something so rare? A balance has to be struck, but it is important to raise GPs’ awareness of such conditions—rare though they are, they do happen.
	There are potential risks in screening women under 25, which have been mentioned. The consequences of unnecessary screening can cause problems in later life, which is why the medical community has had such a discussion about the point at which screening should be done. As politicians, our first regard must be for the medical evidence, and we would never ride roughshod over that, but one thing that we have perhaps not always got right is making information available to people and accepting that people should be trusted with that information. The NHS is very good at giving advice and telling people what they should be doing, but much less good at giving information to help people to make their own informed decisions. The e-petition is about choice and how we ensure that people have the information they need to make the choice for themselves. I understand that Dr Moss of the advisory committee on cervical screening has argued that volunteering to have the test should be an option. If someone does make that request and is turned away, it could cause a very negative response when they are invited for the test later. I know that Sophie was one of the youngest victims of this devastating disease, and such requests would be rare, but people should have the choice.
	The debate is an opportunity to talk about the importance of smear tests. We have all had the invitation and thought, “Oh goodness, I’m not really sure I want to go for that.” But it is vitally important that people have the test if invited, and I hope this debate will make people think about the importance of having a smear test. Cervical cancer is a real problem, and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) rightly talked about early diagnosis and said that that was a problem across various types of cancer. The biggest challenge we face in fighting cancer is getting people to come forward early, and my view is that that is more of a problem in areas of social deprivation. I know from Merseyside, my home patch, that in such areas people are likely to have busy lives, perhaps less awareness, and a bit less confidence and are perhaps working shifts. They may be concerned about symptoms but put their concerns aside, for whatever reason, and the possibility of diagnosis gets later and later.
	We need to recognise the differential prevalence of late diagnosis in different areas, and we should ask what we can do to recognise and address the various social and economic factors that can cause late diagnosis.

Lyn Brown: I am listening to my hon. Friend’s speech with interest and she anticipates many of the points that I want to make. Does she agree that women often put themselves last, behind their family, and there are always other pressing issues to be dealt with rather than a routine cervical smear? Somehow we have to get it across that the smear test is as important as anything else they have to do.

Alison McGovern: In my slightly cack-handed way, that is what I was trying to say. Women are incredibly good at putting off things that concern our own health, which is why it is important that our brothers, fathers, husbands and friends encourage us to be concerned about our health and to look after ourselves. It is also important that we make the point today about the importance of smear tests. People should have a choice
	and be able to talk to their GP about having a test if they need one, and if invited to be screened, they should take up the invitation.

John Baron: The hon. Lady correctly makes the point that we can do more about the disparity in late diagnosis. By focusing on the one-year cancer survival figures by CCG, we can also come together—whether as cancer charities, the cancer community or as politicians—to focus on the under-performing CCGs and ask why that is happening, in the hope that they will themselves introduce initiatives at the local level to drive forward earlier diagnosis. I hope she recognises that that will be an important element of our battle against late diagnosis.

Alison McGovern: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said, Merseyside has a particular issue with cancer, and I feel sure that some of that is to do with late diagnosis that arises from aspects of people’s daily lives. We need to think how we can engage with people in a way that does not depend on their having already some amazing knowledge about the possible symptoms. Many people in my family have had cancer, so we would know, but many people do not know. It can be incredibly stressful to take the first step of going to the GP and saying, “I am really worried. What tests can I have?” We need to encourage CCGs to look at the local conditions and figure out how to get through to the public in their area. The all-party group on cancer has led on that, and I fully support that work.
	Another important aspect is broader cultural change. We need a culture change in the NHS in two respects, and Sophie’s case has caused me to reflect on how the NHS works. First, it is important that we talk about women’s health. Women are very good at putting themselves last and putting off the visit to the GP or the smear test that they need. We have seen the great success of breast cancer and other awareness campaigns, and we need to do the same with some of the less well-known cancers, whose symptoms are less well-known. We need a real focus on women’s cancers to try to improve everybody’s knowledge of them. I realise that it is not always easy to talk about periods and so on. Women are very good at hiding such issues and just coping with them, but we need to talk about symptoms. It is also crucial that GPs are aware of possible symptoms. I have learnt from Sophie’s family and friends, and others in Wirral, that the big barrier is ensuring that GPs understand better what they should be looking for and what advice they should be giving to people who come to them with worries or concerns. I know that some excellent GPs are currently wrestling with that question. People should not be made overly concerned, but if we had more of a culture of giving people information and helping them to make their own decisions, it would help them to feel more empowered.
	The second culture change that I would like to see in the NHS is the NHS listening to young women, who are often dismissed in our society. Colleagues have done great work on women’s representation in the media, and I think we have a cultural issue with the place and value of young women that sometimes presents itself in our health service. Too often in the NHS—this is, I am afraid, something I know from my own experience—young women are given advice and told, or at worst instructed,
	what to do about their health, which is totally disempowering. There are lots of forces in society that are set up to undermine young women, so please let us not have the NHS be one of them. Let us rethink how we identify symptoms early and get people the tests they need. Rather than trying to instruct people, we need to listen to them, respect them, provide them with information and help them to find their own way to the right treatment. In serious cases such as Sophie’s, there are clear worries. More broadly, there is no future for a health service that thinks it can tell people; it has to empower people to make their own decisions.
	In conclusion, Sophie’s family and friends started the petition and all signed it, which has brought us to this debate. They have shown tremendous courage at what must be a difficult time. They want to see the change outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton. The public across the country have signed the e-petition—this has been a national campaign—and have brought the issue to the top of the agenda. That shows how important it is and how much cancer affects family life. We are asking for women to be given more choice over their own health, no matter what their age, and for them to feel more empowered. This was a tragic event. We feel the loss of Sophie in our community. It sparked an outpouring of grief and we must do better to make sure it is less likely to happen again.
	This is Sophie’s debate and we remember and honour her. In her name, I ask that we resolve to make whatever changes are necessary to make this less likely to happen to anyone else. Cancer is a terrible disease, but we are now more able to diagnose, control and contain it than we have ever been. We can win this fight against cancer, so let us all recommit ourselves to do more, to help others and to make sure that we take care of everybody in our society.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I think it will be helpful if I make sure that all Members who wish speak understand the time constraints. There is another debate this afternoon and some Members in the Chamber wish to speak in that debate too. This debate will end for Back Benchers at 2 o’clock. We will then move on to the Front Bench winding-up speeches so that this debate will end by 2.30 pm. I am therefore asking each Member to speak for about seven minutes, including interventions. There are a lot more speakers in the second debate and I need to be fair to them on time allocation too. I am not going to set the clock, but I hope that even when taking interventions each Member will consider the time and their colleagues who are waiting to speak. I hope that is clear in terms of the problems I have, as the Chair, to get us through the debates today.

Paul Burstow: I will stick to your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I welcome this debate and recognise the tragic circumstances that have made it necessary. I watched Sophie’s mum on “Good Morning Britain” this morning. I saw the courage the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) described and the dignity with which
	she advanced the case for what needs to happen. The story Sophie’s mum tells of her fantastic daughter strikes a chord with Members across the House. Indeed, I am speaking in this debate because of my constituents, John and Barbara Welch. They came to my surgery because they were moved by this case and by the experience of their niece in a previous situation.
	I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) that we have to base decisions on cervical screening, and on all screening programmes, on the evidence. It is the evidence that will provide at least some pause for thought, not for Members but for the committee that advises Ministers on screening. I want to touch on that issue; hon. Friends may elaborate on it.
	The original decision to change the age restrictions on the general call-up for cervical screening was taken in 2003. The 20-to-24 age group was excluded at that point. That decision was reaffirmed in 2009 by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening when it reviewed the matter. The argument at the time was that it would have led to unacceptable numbers of premature births compared to lives saved, and that it would cause women anxiety. Those are very important considerations and one can understand why the committee made its original decision on the basis of evidence from research. My point to the Minister is this: since 2009 the evidence has changed, or appears to have changed, so I hope that the advisory committee will look at it again.
	In 2012, a study published in the British Medical Journal, which I understand was the largest of its kind conducted in the UK, appears—I stress the word appears—to contradict the earlier findings of smaller studies. It concluded that treatment for cervical disease does not appear to increase the risk of premature birth. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton touched on this point. Furthermore, the same research found that, since the change in the age at which people begin to be called for screening, the number of women diagnosed with advanced-stage cervical cancer at the age of 25 has tripled. The early-stage numbers have quadrupled. I stress that we are still talking about a rare set of circumstances and small numbers, but small numbers do not, in the end, absolve us from looking at the individuals who then find themselves with this terrible disease.
	Will the Minister ask the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening to review the 2012 evidence? The evidence was produced from a study by one of the leading professionals in the area, who was also responsible for the earlier studies that led to the opposite decision. Will the Minister look at why the 2010 guidance referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, which should have ensured that GPs made the right decisions on symptoms to allow smear tests to take place, does not appear to have had its full intended effect? The number of women diagnosed under the age of 25 apparently continues to fall, while the number of women over 25 continues to rise. There is, therefore, something going on. I hope we can ask the experts to advise us and look at what the research is telling us, so that we can make adjustments and ensure that the trend is reversed.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the goal which must be shared across the House and in the wider community of cancer rightly no longer being seen as a death sentence. If we get early detection right and raise
	awareness of the early signs and symptoms of any cancer, but particularly cervical cancer, we can make a difference to the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens. As a former Minister with responsibility for cancer, I know it is important to be guided by the evidence. I took the decision to commission a further review on breast cancer to ensure that we were satisfied that screening was not doing inadvertent harm. I hope that we can ensure that we are acting on the basis of the best evidence.
	The Government’s work, which began at the beginning of this Administration, in introducing the Be Clear on Cancer campaign, is critical. Awareness is critical not just to raising public awareness, but to raising GP awareness. I hope the Minister will say more on the plans in relation to cervical cancer. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
	I would like to end by offering my condolences and sympathies to Sophie’s family. I hope that some good can come out of something so tragic.

Lyn Brown: Let me begin by offering my condolences to Sophie’s family, and thanking the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling the debate.
	As we have heard, cervical cancer, although rare in women under 25, can be far more aggressive than cancers developed by older women. As we saw in the tragic case of Sophie’s death, her cancer had a devastating effect although she was only 19. The smear test that Sophie requested would have shown abnormal tissue growth in her cervix, and, although it might have been too late to save her life, the fact that she was refused that test is tragic. We must all learn the lessons of her death, and seek new and better ways of dealing with such cases.
	Newham has a lower incidence of cancer than many other areas, but, sadly, our mortality rate is higher, owing mainly to late presentation. In 2012 the London-wide mortality rate was about 112 deaths per 100,000 cases, while in Newham it was 123 deaths per 100,000 cases. There have been instances in which stage 4 cancer has presented itself for the first time in A and E departments, and we know that there is no stage 5.
	As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), there is a relationship between deprivation and death from cancer. Social and economic deprivation have a severe impact on health, as has been shown by countless reports and studies. The figures for London and England clearly demonstrate that deprivation contributes to the incidence and types of cervical cancer, and to the survival rates of sufferers. The mortality rate among those in the 30 most deprived areas is nearly double that among those in the 30 most affluent.
	Although the deprivation in Newham means that poor health is more prevalent there than it is in other areas, excellent work has been done in the borough, especially in our schools. Newham is also building on its current 90% coverage of the human papillomavirus vaccination programme. It is one of only two areas to have achieved that target, thus helping to prevent cancer despite the barriers to screening uptake. However, as we know, HPV immunisation does not entirely eliminate
	the risk of cervical cancer. That should be explained clearly to young women who take part in the programme, which is what is being done in Newham.
	Regular smear testing is the only way in which individuals can be sure that their health needs are being met. In the case of cervical cancer, the take-up of screening services in Newham was just 22% in 2012-13. That is nearly 2% less than the figure for the previous year, and below the average figures for London and England, which, sadly, are only marginally better. Poor survival rates in deprived areas are arguably due to low take-up of screening, which results in the cancer presenting itself at a later and more advanced stage.
	I am pleased that the Government have said that they aim to match European survival rates and, in doing so, save approximately 5,000 more lives, but it worries me that no indication has yet been given of how that will be measured, or, indeed, whether the targets are being met. Cancer networks, which were established in 2000, are currently being replaced by strategic clinical networks, which will deal not only with cancer but with maternity, mental health and dementia. Many professionals have suggested to me that, given that the new networks will cover a wider clinical range and a larger geographic area and will retain fewer dedicated cancer network staff, the overall decrease in funding may well lead to an inconsistent and unreliable service. I think that the Government should heed those fears and examine the allocation of resources to ensure that the areas with the greatest need receive appropriate funding, thus reducing the disparities in life expectancy and survival between the least deprived and the best off.
	There is ample evidence of the need for awareness of conditions such as cervical cancer to be kept at a high level, and that requires continual effort. Following the death of Jade Goody in March 2009, 70% more women than the normal average were given smear tests, and I must admit to being one of them. I am sure that I am not the only woman in the Chamber today who has found other things to do rather than nipping down to the doctor for that very quick, clear test. Most of those who were tested were aged between 25 and 39, which is the age group with the lowest rates of attendance for screening. That is understandable, given that smear tests can be very uncomfortable and even painful in some instances, but we still need to have them.
	Owing to the nature of the populations of Newham and, I assume, similar areas, national awareness campaigns struggle to have a fully effective impact in our communities. We need to understand why that is, and take action to deal with it. I am grateful to Newham’s fantastic Community Links charity, whose awareness campaigns have very proactive. It has been instrumental in driving up screening rates, and its work in schools has ensured that its message reaches not only children throughout the borough, but their families at home. Children are a great way of getting to parents, and nagging them to pieces.
	I know that the aim of this debate is to ensure that other girls, unlike Sophie Jones, can have their concerns heard. Much more needs to be done to educate young women about the detectable symptoms of cervical cancer, and it is imperative for the NHS to remove as many of the barriers to screening as possible. I urge the Minister to look at the excellent work of Community Links, and
	to consider whether the action that it has taken on behalf of my community can be learnt from and prove relevant in other parts of the country.

Martin Horwood: It is an honour and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), as well as other Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), whose speech was a moving tribute to Sophie Jones—her constituent—and her family. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing this timely debate.
	I welcome the Government’s work on cancer in general. Their “Be Clear on Cancer” campaigns, which began in 2011, have been producing good work, which is now being done in conjunction with Public Health England. I should probably declare a non-pecuniary interest here: my wife is the director of one of Public Health England’s regional centres.
	I feel some sympathy with the Minister. I am sure that her instinct was to trust her brief from the Department, and its representation of the risks and statistics attached to cervical cancer and screening. I suspect that, being a member of the coalition, I have a similar brief before me now. I have to say, however, that deeper examination of those risks and statistics casts grave doubt on the Department’s current interpretation of them.
	I have benefited by some forensic research carried out by my constituent and friend Mel Gladwin. Mel works for an organisation in Cheltenham that is well known for its forensic examination of data, but she contacted me in connection with today’s debate because in 2003, at the age of 22, she was diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cervical cancer. I am delighted to say that she is now perfectly healthy, and has a bouncy seven-year-old son. Her life was saved by effective treatment. The treatment was effective because Mel’s condition was diagnosed early, and it was diagnosed early because she was part of a routine screening programme for those aged under 25. Mel, her family and I are all pretty well convinced that she would not be with us today if that routine screening programme had not existed.
	Mel tells me that in 2009, the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening cited two specific reasons for not restoring screening for those aged under 25. One was that it caused significant anxiety. That view appears to have been based not on any recent evidence, but on evidence dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, when survival rates generally were much lower, a much greater stigma was attached to cancer, and, I suspect, anxiety levels were higher. I believe that cancer now constitutes a largely curable disease in the public imagination, and that anxiety levels may not be quite the same. In any event, I think that when anxiety is balanced against the risk of death, most people would rather be sure that they were safe, even if the cost of that was some anxiety.
	The principal reason given by the ACCS for its decision was the potential risk of premature birth if the women concerned had children later in life. That evidence was presented to the committee by Professor Peter Sasieni of Queen Mary, University of London—the self same Peter Sasieni who conducted the much more robust
	2012 study referred to by hon. Members today. It was a study of 44,000 women, including 2,000 to 3,000 under the age of 25, and was much larger than the earlier studies and based in England, whereas the others were done in Scandinavian countries where the incidence was different and the treatment appears to have been somewhat different. Therefore, this research is much more robust and relevant.
	Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam presented the results in quite a qualified way, actually, the British Medical Journal was pretty robust in its conclusions when it published them:
	“After adjusting the results to account for the type of treatment and whether it had occurred before or after the birth, the researchers found that there was no increased risk associated with treatment. The researchers concluded that the increased risk of preterm birth in women who have been treated for cervical disease was due to common factors that increased the risk of both cervical disease and preterm delivery, and not to the treatment itself.”
	The BMJ could not really have been clearer, yet that evidence has never been formally reviewed by the ACCS.
	That suggests that there is no strong reason not to screen women under 25, but perhaps we should balance that against whether there is a strong reason actually to screen women under 25, because the Department must also take that into consideration. Mel comes from a talented family. Her father, as luck would have it, is a mathematician and computer scientist at the university of Kent’s school of computing. He has looked at research produced by Cancer Research UK on the incidence of diagnosis of cervical cancer in various age cohorts. The statistics are very strange. The incidence of diagnosis at 25 has tripled in just the last few years—a huge spike in the statistics—and is many times the incidence at 24 and lower ages, which appears, strangely, to have reduced. It is also higher than the incidence at 26, so something very odd is happening. What was previously a gradual increase in incidence of diagnosis by age cohort now contains a massive spike.
	Peter Welch, Mel’s father, is not medically qualified but he is a statistician and knows his statistics. His conclusion was pretty clear:
	“The figure shows a dwindling of diagnosed cervical cancers in the 20-24 year group since they stopped being screened and a massive spike in those aged 25 (discovered on their first screen). That dwindling is very unlikely to be because the prevalence of cervical cancer has dwindled. The huge spike—approximately 10 times the counts for the individual year groups 20 through 24 and 3 times the counts for the year groups 26 through 29—is most likely because of cancers that would have been prevented by screening now developing and cancers that would have been found earlier now being found late.”
	In other words, withdrawing routine screening has suppressed the numbers at 25 and younger, and massively increased them at age 25. That is a very serious conclusion. If it is true and the conclusions of the second batch of Sasieni research are true, the inescapable conclusion is that we have denied screening to young women whose lives would have been saved, and increased the risk at the age of 25 and above of people having had undiagnosed cancer before then.
	I am very glad that Mel is happy and healthy, but she clearly attributes her survival to the routine screening programme. This issue is now in urgent need of review. We are not talking about vast numbers of young women —there were about 45 in 2010, according to the most recent available statistics—but their lives might be being
	put at risk each year, and the Government must reflect urgently on the issue and reconvene the ACCS to look again at the most recent and robust research.

Katy Clark: It is a pleasure to follow the knowledgeable contribution from the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for bringing this matter to the House today on behalf of the family of Sophie Jones, who did so much work to collect the many signatures that ensured that we had this debate. I pay tribute to them for reacting in that way, because it is incredibly important that people such as them do this work to raise awareness of the condition, and to ensure that we have the health services required for this form of cancer.
	I am speaking in today’s debate because of my constituent, Suzanne Fernando, who lives in Ardrossan. She was diagnosed with cervical cancer when she was pregnant, and describes herself as a survivor of cancer. She has campaigned tirelessly on the issue throughout my time as a Member of Parliament, and I have campaigned with her on many different aspects of the disease: ensuring that people use cervical cancer screening services and get smears; attending local schools with her and encouraging girls to get the HPV vaccination; and supporting her in her fundraising work. She was Scotland’s first campaigns ambassador for Cancer Research UK. She set up a cervical cancer support group in Ayrshire, which provides people with advice on the disease at any stage. We should pay tribute to all the women throughout the country who have experience of cervical cancer and who do everything they can to ensure that others do not go through what they have been through, that the condition is identified early and prevented and that people get the treatment to which they are entitled.
	I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South about young women. Often, young women have the greatest contact with the health service when they have children. Many of us have been aware for generations how disempowering many women find that experience. It is incredibly important that the motion before us states clearly that when a woman asks to have a smear test, she should be entitled to have it. The case of Sophie Jones shows powerfully why that is important.
	There are far wider issues, such as having a patient-centred service and actually listening to what people are saying—whether they are young or old, a woman or a man, and whatever ethnic or other background they come from—and ensuring that they are given access to the treatment they deserve.
	Suzanne Fernando is taking part in cervical cancer awareness week, participating in a 5 km walk for fun at Eglinton Park in Kilwinning, Ayrshire, on 15 June. Of course, she is just one of the many women who are trying to raise awareness of this condition. I hope the message goes out clearly from this House today that we want the Government to do what is necessary to ensure that young women in particular are given access to the NHS facilities that they deserve, that we listen to what young women say, that we listen to what Sophie Jones’s family is saying and that we learn the lessons to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) and I thank her for her contribution. Today’s debate is an emotive one as it directly concerns the loss of a 19-year-old lady. May I pass my sincere condolences to the family of Sophie Jones, some of whom, as the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has said, are in the Gallery today? As a father of children around that age, my heart breaks a little to think of what the family are going through, and I congratulate those family and friends who worked so hard to see this issue brought before the House. We are debating this issue because of their enterprise and commitment, and the response from hon. Members. May I especially commend the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and for Wirral South for their massive contributions here today, and the other Members who clearly, excellently and passionately made detailed contributions?
	I am a major supporter of the HPV vaccine being brought into schools so that we can take a hold of this cancer. I was delighted when the vaccine became standard in schools. The statistics for cancer are beyond frightening, and if anything can be done to prevent cancer or ensure its early diagnosis, we need to implement it as a matter of urgency. It is estimated that by 2020 one in two people will either suffer or have family who suffer from a form of cancer. That statistic makes me go cold, but it is a reality that warrants action, and today we have an opportunity to discuss and highlight cervical cancer and how it affects people.
	In 2010, 2,851 women in the UK were diagnosed with cervical cancer, which is the 12th most common cancer in women and the most common cancer in women under 35 in the UK. Again, that shows the magnitude of the issue. In 2011, there were 972 deaths from cervical cancer in the UK. Between 2005 and 2009, 66.6% of adult cervical cancer patients in England survived their cancer for five years or more. A number of hon. Members have made the point about early diagnosis, and I know that the Minister will indicate the steps that the NHS has taken to address early diagnosis. The statistics I have given warrant this debate, and we must examine the case of Sophie Jones to see whether the age limit should be changed. What is clear to me is that if a young lady requests a smear test, there should be a mechanism through which she receives it as a matter of urgency. Clearly that did not happen in Sophie’s case when it should have done, which is why we are discussing this matter today. That is a terrible lesson that must be learned from this case, and I ask the Minister to confirm that tests will always be given in those circumstances from now on. That is the issue we are asking the question and seeking the answer on; everyone who has spoken on this matter has asked that question.
	Among women in their 30s, cervical screening can prevent about 45% of cervical cancer cases. That figure rises with age to 75% among women in their 50s and 60s who attend screening regularly. Clearly, screening works, and there is a case to be answered. I ask that the Minister, in providing an in-depth response to the debate, also indicates what discussions have taken place with the devolved health bodies to ascertain their opinion and to ensure that the strategy we are discussing can be allocated to and introduced in all regions of the UK.
	She often hears me ask about the following issue in our debates, but I am always conscious that we have good practice in many parts of the United Kingdom and that when we exchange our viewpoints and agree strategies all can gain across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I know that our health Minister in Northern Ireland is well aware of this issue and has a well-informed opinion on the matter, and I am anxious to ensure that there is a UK-wide informed strategy in place.
	This is one of those occasions when the House excels, coming together, across party lines, to grasp an issue that we can all support and try to push forward. It is good to have that unanimous support today from across the Chamber, with all parties giving their contribution. Cancer is a dreadful disease and if something is in our grasp that will prevent any of our constituents from going through it, we need to act. I am no medical expert—far from it—and I cannot give an answer, but I can demand, as the Member of Parliament for Strangford and on behalf of my constituents, that the medical experts give reasons why they have reached the decisions they have. I would like to understand the implications of dropping the age limit back down to 19, as is the case in Scotland and as was the case in Northern Ireland until 2004, when it was changed.
	As I have said, there is a case to answer. The terrible loss of Sophie Jones has prompted this debate. To honour her memory, I support the calls for a review of the age limit for cervical screening UK-wide.

Luciana Berger: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) and the other hon. Members who supported the application for this debate to ensure that the House can discuss such an important issue. I also thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions throughout the debate, which are a testament to how much the case of Sophie Jones has moved Members on both sides of the House. Not only across this House, but across the country people have reacted with shock and sadness at the death of a young woman that might have been prevented. We need only consider the number of people who signed the petition calling for the Government to look again at cervical cancer screening to appreciate the depth of feeling surrounding this issue. As we heard, 321,956 people signed it, which is more than three times the number required for it to be considered for a debate in this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, that is the largest number for any of these petitions.
	I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sophie Jones’s family and friends for their courage, spirit and strength in driving forward this campaign and for their determination to ensure that what happened to Sophie does not happen to another young woman. I am speaking in this debate not just as shadow public health Minister, but as a constituency MP representing Liverpool, Wavertree. My constituency is close to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), where Sophie Jones lived, and this tragic case has affected people right across Merseyside. I have
	heard from a number of constituents who have read about Sophie’s story and were very keen for me to participate in this debate.
	I was very privileged to meet Sophie’s family with my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South and hear from them about what a remarkable young woman Sophie was. She was active, well-liked and so positive, and I was so moved hearing about her bravery and positive outlook, even as her cancer took hold—it really is a true inspiration to us all. I am glad that the House has had the opportunity to hear about Sophie’s case, to examine policy on cervical cancer screening and to debate ways in which we can do so much more to ensure that such a tragedy does not happen again.
	Cervical cancer is the most common cancer in women under 35 in the UK and although deaths from cervical cancer have plummeted over the past 30 years, about 970 women died from it in 2011 in the UK—that is more than two women every day. Cervical cancer is not normally associated with younger women—as we have heard from a number of hon. Members, it is extremely rare in under-25s. There were 47 cases in women aged under 25 in England in 2011, which was less than 2% of all cases. The House has heard today many good reasons why routine cancer screening is offered when women turn 25. I will not go through them in detail but I will touch on them briefly.
	We have heard today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, about evidence showing that screening all women under the age of 25 can lead to some harmful investigations and treatments. I listened to what the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response and whether she believes that that evidence needs to be reviewed. I am grateful for the opportunity I have had to speak to experts in this field, including at the Liverpool women’s hospital, in preparation for today’s debate. I have heard that there are problems involved in screening under-25s and that young women often undergo natural and harmless changes in the cervix that a smear test would identify as abnormalities. Screening young women would involve putting these women through further tests and investigations they would not otherwise have gone through when, in most cases, the abnormalities would have sorted themselves out without any need for treatment. I understand that the decision for routine cervical screening to begin at 25 was taken after a thorough review of the evidence by expert clinicians and scientists. That decision was reviewed in 2009 by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening, which at the time voted unanimously to keep the age at which screening starts at 25, reaffirming the earlier conclusion that the harms of screening women under 25 outweighed the benefits.
	The point in the cases of Sophie Jones and of all the other people we have heard about today is that there is heartbreaking proof that, though rare, cervical cancer in the under-25s can happen. We must get better at spotting the signs of the disease and diagnosing it earlier.
	I wish to cover three main areas for improvement to which I hope the Minister will respond. First, we must increase awareness of the symptoms not just among women so that they can spot the signs and go to their doctor at an early stage, but among doctors and nurses so that they understand that young women can develop
	cervical cancer. Secondly, we must ensure that once cancer is diagnosed, women are swiftly referred for treatment. Finally, we must do more to prevent cervical cancer from happening in the first place. We can do that by ensuring high levels of coverage among girls of the human papillomavirus vaccination programme and that eligible women attend their cervical screening appointment.
	The cervical screening programme is highly effective at detecting early stages of cancer or pre-cancer, but it is not the best tool for diagnosing cervical cancer once symptoms are apparent, as they were in the case of Sophie. We know that detecting cancer early can make a real difference. The earlier that cervical cancer is diagnosed, the better the outcomes are likely to be. As we heard from the chair of the all-party group on cancer, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), it is so important that women are made aware of the signs and symptoms of the disease.
	I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South; it was refreshing to hear a man—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton—listing the different symptoms experienced by women. I will not read them out again, but encouraging women to visit their GP if they have any concern or are showing any of the symptoms is such a simple message that could make a really big difference. Men, as fathers, partners and siblings, can also play a part, by being aware of the symptoms.
	The tragedy in Sophie’s case was that she did visit the doctor on a number of occasions, but tragically was not diagnosed accurately. The Government must do more to ensure that GPs are getting the support and the training they need to help them identify cancer signs and symptoms, and that needs to be done during initial training and ongoing professional development. Clinical commissioning groups have a role to play, too. Crucially, we must make doctors aware that, although rare, young women can suffer from cervical cancer.
	As much as these improvements at the first point of contact are needed, they are not enough if, once cancer is suspected, people are not seen quickly enough by specialists. We have heard from Members about how important early diagnosis and treatment are. NHS England’s figures on cancer targets for the last three months of 2013 reveal that 4,500 people waited more than two months for treatment after an urgent GP referral, which was in breach of the Government’s own target. That is not good enough, and the Government must urgently get to grips with the failing.
	If we are to win the battle against cervical cancer, we must do everything possible to prevent it from occurring in the first place. I am proud of the fact that it was the previous Government who, in 2008, introduced the HPV vaccine, which immunises teenage girls against the majority of the high-risk strains of HPV that are associated with cervical cancer. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton highlighted the very high risks connected with the HPV virus and cervical cancer. All 12 and 13-year-old girls are now being offered the vaccine through their secondary schools. From September 2012 to September 2013, 86.1% of 12 to 13-year-old girls in England went on to receive all three doses of the vaccine. There is room for improvement here, and the Government must do more to encourage girls aged 12 and 13 to participate in the HPV vaccination programme.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) outlined in her contribution, the HPV vaccination alone will not prevent every case of cervical cancer. Alongside the HPV vaccine, the best preventative measure is for eligible women to attend their routine cervical screening appointment. We know that cervical screening saves around 5,000 lives every year in the UK, but, despite that, around 3.7 million women are currently overdue for a smear test. Shockingly, that has increased to 11% since 2009-10.
	One challenge is around access to GPs. A YouGov survey for Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust found that of the women of screening age who have missed or delayed appointments, almost a third of them said that it was hard to book a screening at a convenient time, and 35% said that if GP surgery opening times had been more flexible it would have encouraged them to attend their appointments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South said, we should do all that we can to encourage and provide opportunity for women to take up their invitation for a smear test.
	I wish to finish by coming back to Sophie and her family. As Sophie's mother, Peri Cawley, said:
	“If we can do something to make sure this doesn’t happen to someone else, then Sophie's death will not have been in vain.”
	The petition under discussion had hundreds of thousands of signatures, which shows that people across the country support that goal. As today’s debate has shown, Members of this House are clear about what needs to be done. We must increase awareness of the symptoms among not just women, but men and all GPs to ensure that they understand that younger women can develop cervical cancer and are able to spot the signs. We must also ensure that we do more to prevent cervical cancer from occurring in the first place by encouraging girls to have the HPV vaccine and women to attend their cervical screening appointments. We now look to the Government to take the action that is needed to make progress on those counts and to ensure that there is no repeat of the tragedy that happened to Sophie Jones. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Jane Ellison: I congratulate the hon. Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing and leading this debate. We all wish that we were not debating this issue, important though it is, against such a tragic backdrop. I share the view of the hon. Member for Wirral South that it is a great innovation that, through e-petitions and the Backbench Business Committee—she knows that I used to serve on that Committee—that we can now bring issues of such huge public concern swiftly to the House for debate.
	This has been an excellent debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. Depending on how tolerant Mr Deputy Speaker is feeling, I may not get the chance to address all the points that have been raised, but I hope Members know that I will, as I always commit to, respond to them after the debate.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The Deputy Speaker is always generous in the time that he gives but, recognising that there are constraints, I welcome those comments.

Jane Ellison: Indeed, and I will be guided by you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Like others, I start by paying tribute to Sophie Jones and her brave battle against cervical cancer. I also offer my sincere condolences to her family who have conducted themselves with such dignity in recent weeks and months. I assure all Members that I will try to address the important issues that they have raised. There is a lot to say, so if I do not get through it all, I will respond to them afterwards.
	Although I am not able to comment in detail on individual clinical cases, we understand that Sophie’s case was one of misdiagnosis rather than of screening, to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton alluded. Thankfully, cases of cervical cancer in her age group are extremely rare. I understand that the medical director for the Cheshire, Warrington and Wirral area team has requested that the GP practice undertake a significant event analysis to review the case, and ensure that all appropriate procedures are followed and that any lessons learned are put into practice. Once that is completed, it will be agreed with the practice how that will be shared. I can assure the House that I fully expect NHS England to keep the family and local MP fully informed as the investigation progresses.
	Despite the tragic circumstances in this case, I reassure the House that the NHS cervical screening programme is one of the most well regarded in the world. More than 3 million women are screened every year. Experts estimate that the programme saves up to 4,500 lives in England alone. However, it has to be based on the best available evidence. The best independent evidence shows that routine screening of women under 25, on balance, does more harm than good. The UK national screening committee reviewed the age of cervical screening in 2012—although some Members have said that the last review was earlier or later than that—and confirmed the English policy of not screening those aged under 25 as it has no impact that can be seen on the detection rates of cervical cancer in young women and gives rise to a high number of false positives, which cause anxiety and, more importantly, lead to unnecessary investigations and treatments that can have side effects.
	The UK NSC review in 2012 followed a review of the age at which cervical screening starts by the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening, or ACCS, which is made up of experts in a range of disciplines, third sector representatives from Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust and patients. The ACCS review took place in May 2009 to consider the raising of the screening age from 20 to 25, and it confirmed that decision. The 2012 review was partly a response to the Jade Goody effect mentioned by some hon. Members today and was intended to reconsider that decision. The ACCS was unanimous in deciding that there was no reason to lower the age from 25, which is in line with World Health Organisation guidelines.
	Some of the reasons behind that decision have been mentioned. The research presented showed that there was little or no impact on detection rates in those aged up to 30, no clear evidence of an increase in the incidence of cervical cancer following the change to the screening age in 2004, no new scientific evidence was available to support reintroduction of screening and one in three young women aged under 25 would have an abnormal
	result when screened, as opposed to one in 14 from all women who are screened. That shows a lot of false positives in young women.

Martin Horwood: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: If the hon. Gentleman is going to draw my attention to the statistics he presented, I am happy to look at them in detail and, indeed, I have a partial answer to some of his questions.

Martin Horwood: indicated dissent.

Jane Ellison: I will give way very quickly, but I need to get through my speech.

Martin Horwood: I was interested to know when in 2012 the UK NSC met. The second Sasieni research was only published in August 2012 and the Cancer Research UK statistics were published in the BMJ in 2013, so they have not been reviewed as far as I know.

Jane Ellison: As I said, the hon. Gentleman presented quite a detailed statistical submission and I shall respond to him after the debate rather than off the cuff. His statistics deserve better than that.
	Cervical cancer is thankfully very rare in women aged under 25. As has been said, there were 47 cases in England in 2011, the last year for which we have figures. That is less than 2% of all cases and there were two deaths. Obviously, we will consider the statistics presented by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), but we are aware that in 2009-10—this also relates to the points made by other hon. Members, and most strongly by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), about health inequalities—an extra 600,000 women came forward for screening, many as a result of the publicity around the death of Jade Goody. Many of those women were from lower socio-economic and hard-to-reach groups, and they are more often at risk. That is an important statistic and we need to consider that again.
	It may the House if I briefly run through the science behind the abnormal screening results in younger women. Primarily, they are caused by the fact that they have a high rate of HPV infection, as the cervix in young women is more prone to infection with transient HPV, both because it has not yet matured and because younger women might be exposed more often to different types of HPV. Furthermore, some of the few cancers found in young women are unusual and rare tumours that differ from the type we screen for, such as small cell tumours which can develop rapidly and are very dangerous. However, some are HPV-associated tumours that develop at a young age and sometimes simply as a rapidly developing cancer. The key thing in such cases is rapid referral and an appropriate medical response.
	In its 2009 report, the ACCS was concerned that young women presenting to primary care with symptoms of cervical cancer were not always given the best advice. I know that that will be a concern not only to Sophie’s family but to all of us in this House and to the NHS. We know that for many GPs, seeing a patient with cervical cancer is rare, and potentially only one GP in 16 will see a new case each year. That is quite a statistic. To help GPs make the right clinical decisions, new guidance for primary care on the management of young women with
	gynaecological symptoms was developed and sent to all GPs in England in March 2010. The guidance was developed by a multi-disciplinary group, and supported by all the relevant royal colleges. I undertake to raise the issue again with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of General Practitioners to explore the best way to remind GPs of the guidance.
	I reiterate that whatever her age, if a woman is concerned about abnormal symptoms she should contact her GP, who will be able to examine and refer her urgently to a gynaecologist if clinically appropriate. The House might not be aware that the guidance is explicit that in any case where a woman is showing symptoms, best practice is that she should not be referred for screening. That is because a cervical screening test is aimed at women without symptoms. It is a screening, not a diagnostic test, and waiting two weeks for the result could delay examination by a gynaecologist. That is a really important point to bring out in the debate. If someone has symptoms, we want to get them urgently from symptom to diagnosis via a referral, and a screening test could further delay that.
	I want to talk a little, as others have, about the human papilloma virus, or HPV. Many Members have mentioned the fact that we have identified high-risk types of the virus and that the vaccination programme sprang from that identification of risk. The programme was introduced in 2008 for girls aged 12 to 13. Its aim was to prevent cervical cancer related to the HPV types covered by the vaccine, which covers about 70% of all cervical cancers. The programme has been a big success. More than 7.8 million doses have been given so far in the UK since 2008, and we have among the highest rates of HPV vaccine coverage in the world, with 86% of girls eligible for routine vaccination in England in the 2012-13 academic year completing the three-dose course, and 90% receiving at least two doses.
	It may be of interest to Members to hear that the Merseyside area team reports a higher than national average take-up of the HPV vaccine, with 87.8% of girls vaccinated with all three doses in 2012-13. In Wirral and Sefton, that figure was 90%. However, we cannot be complacent and we want to get the fullest possible coverage. That is something about which MPs, as well as Ministers, can do a lot to spread the word. When we go into schools, a good question to ask might concern the coverage and whether there are particular groups of parents or people from particular backgrounds who do not take up the vaccine.
	It is expected that the programme will eventually save more than 400 lives a year from cervical cancer. The first indication that the programme is successfully preventing infection with HPV types 16 and 18 in sexually active young women in England was published in the scientific journal Vaccine, and showed that the proportion of infected rates in 16 to 18-year-olds fell from 17.6% in 2008 to 6.6% between 2010 and 2012. That is major progress, so the take-up of the vaccine is really important.
	We encourage all girls, irrespective of religion or ethnic background, to receive the HPV vaccination. NHS England is responsible for making arrangements to implement the programme for eligible girls and young women in the local area, taking into account local circumstances, such as the number of independent or special schools and the number of girls who are not in
	school. Interestingly, I was informed that Surrey has a much lower take-up, so perhaps we need to consider how to deal with girls in independent schools, or other local circumstances. NHS England is also responsible for ensuring that local programmes meet the national specifications.
	We are using our growing knowledge of HPV to modernise the NHS’s cervical screening programme by considering HPV infection alongside the screening programme and looking for abnormalities and seeing how they can interact. Public Health England is also promoting the use of the HPV test as a primary screen, which is very interesting. A lot of work is going on, and the first evaluation report of the pilot is due in spring 2015. Cancer Research UK has estimated that, when fully implemented, HPV primary screening could prevent hundreds of cancers a year.
	There are some particular matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the House, as I have a little time. The Prime Minister’s £50 million GP access fund will support more than 1,400 practices covering every region to offer extra services for those who struggle to find appointments that fit in with family and work. That is important and responds to one of the points made by the shadow Minister.
	I hope we can show that despite tragic cases such as Sophie’s, the age at which screening starts in England is based on sound evidence. It has been carefully considered by members of expert committees pretty recently. However, I am very aware that we need to keep all evidence under review. I have already had a brief conversation with the chief medical officer about this. Members may be aware that one of my fellow Ministers is a specialist in this area of medicine, so we will make sure that we look again at the points that have been made in the debate.
	There is much we can do as a House and as a country to reduce the number of women who suffer from this devastating disease. I urge every woman invited to screening to take up the opportunity, as we know that 25% of women in the 25-to-30 age group do not. On screening, I do not have time to describe the work in detail, but I can assure Members that Public Health England has work under way specifically to look at low coverage in certain areas and to work on local action plans to improve that coverage.
	I want to do more to urge employers to support their staff. Again, evidence from Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, representatives of which I met on Monday evening and discussed some of these issues with, suggests that many younger women do not want to ask an employer for time off for a smear test. I will look at what we can do through work that is already going on with employers to see how we can encourage them to make it clear to young women that they do not have to go through an embarrassing conversation to get time off for that. I will be looking at that further with Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust.
	If Members who called the debate and spoke in it have the appetite for it, I am happy to devote a special day in Parliament to what we can do on take-up of screening and of HPV vaccination. I would love to do that piece of work with hon. Members if they want to work with me on that, because much of this is down to local and specific community factors. A one-size-fits-all national programme is not adequate. As part of Be Clear on Cancer, we have a pilot programme on ovarian
	cancer which will be running this spring, so we are moving into those gynaecological issues. We will look at the review of that to see whether there is more we can do in this area. Work is under way, but there is so much more we can do working together.

Lyn Brown: I am grateful to the Minister and I will certainly take her up on that. May I remind her of the hysteroscopy campaign, which we could perhaps dovetail into that work?

Jane Ellison: Of course. I remember that I responded to the hon. Lady on the detail of that.
	I have started to write routinely to the chairmen of health and wellbeing boards to make them aware of issues that are of interest to parliamentarians and changes in law or guidance. I undertake to mention this subject, particularly in the context of Sophie Jones’s case, in my next letter to health and wellbeing board chairmen, to draw it to their attention. There is a 1 million study under way by the National Institute for Health Research under its health technology assessment programme to look at the issues of effective interventions for younger women on the take-up of screening, so work is in progress.

John Baron: Will the Minister update the House briefly on whether there has been any progress on work regarding how we will hold underperforming CCGs to account, once the one-year cancer survival figures are published from June onwards?

Jane Ellison: I applaud my hon. Friend for taking a further opportunity to draw that to my attention—we met on Monday evening and discussed it. That will be part of the Department’s response to the all-party group’s report, and I undertake to update him further. I note, as he does, that he raised the matter with the Prime Minister recently and I will keenly pursue the points that he has made.
	Finally, I thank all the staff involved in the national screening programme and those who deliver the important HPV vaccination programme for all their hard work. More power to the elbow of those who are looking for ways at local or national level to reach more young women, for all the reasons outlined by so many Members in so many excellent speeches. We can do so much more to achieve greater awareness and greater take-up, to get greater numbers of people screened and taking up the HPV vaccine. All that is work that we as Members of Parliament, I as a Minister and many people involved in our health services around the country can take part in. I recognise that for Sophie’s family, nothing we do can make up for her loss, but it can be part of her legacy. I thank Members for bringing this debate to the House.

Steve Rotheram: I thank all Members who have taken part in today’s debate, especially the Minister and the shadow Minister. As I said to the Backbench Business Committee, Parliament is often accused of debating only issues that stimulate interest in the Westminster bubble and that do not resonate with the wider public. That accusation cannot be levelled at us today. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) have met
	Sophie’s family, and their contributions today were examples of how moved they have been by this case and reaffirmed my belief that we should do everything we can as parliamentarians to use Parliament as a mechanism to put this issue on the national media agenda.
	I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his insightful speech, much of which I agreed with, in particular his excellently made point about the need to focus on outcomes rather than targets. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly highlighted the conflicting advice by some in the medical profession about the dangers of smear tests for young women, and the recent Sasieni research, which calls into question the guidance from 2009.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke about the work of Sir Robin Wales and Newham council, and I pay tribute to both. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for raising the case of her constituent Suzanne Fernando, and for the work that she is doing to support Suzanne’s work. It is a first-class example of how MPs can play their part in raising awareness. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of his support for the HPV vaccination programme.
	The purpose of this debate was to put cervical cancer, its symptoms and the anomalies that exist in its detection on the agenda, and I believe that with the support of more than 320,000 signatories, we have achieved that. I am positive that through the dedication of her family and friends that she left behind, this debate will go some way to ensuring that Sophie’s legacy is a life-saving one for many young women in the future, and I hope her family can at least draw some comfort from that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the e-petition relating to the tragic death of Sophie Jones from cervical cancer; believes that the Government should urgently issue guidance stipulating that all women should have the choice of taking a smear test regardless of their age and in consultation with their doctor; and further notes that the best way to combat cervical cancer is by increasing awareness of its symptoms so as to ensure that early diagnosis rates are driven up, doctors and nurses understand that although it is very rare, younger women can develop cervical cancer, and high levels of coverage among young girls of the HPV vaccination programme introduced in 2008 are achieved.

Sadiq Khan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that we on the Labour Benches have on a number of occasions expressed concern about the Government’s policy on legal aid and its consequences. This morning His Honour Judge Leonard QC sitting at Southwark Crown Court stayed proceedings in the Crown v. Crawley and others, a £4.5 million fraud trial, after he heard representations from one of the country’s leading and most respected QCs that the case should not proceed, as a fair trial was not possible because of the consequences of the legal aid changes introduced by the Lord Chancellor.
	This case alone has cost the taxpayer tens of thousand of pounds and justice has not been done, but it is extremely serious for the criminal justice system in this country, which has not just been brought into disrepute,
	but is now rendered ineffective by a Lord Chancellor who is out of his depth.
	[Interruption.]
	I understand that there are at least eight other complex criminal cases, including—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Swire, I will make the decision. We do not need any help from the Front Bench.

Sadiq Khan: That demonstrates the respect that the Government have for the justice system.
	I understand that there are at least eight other complex cases, including those relating to the LIBOR fixing scandal, where barristers of sufficient expertise have not been found. Mr Deputy Speaker, have you received any indication from the Lord Chancellor that he intends to make a statement today to the House about the consequences of the judgment for the criminal courts, and his proposals to remedy the crisis he has caused in the court system?

Lindsay Hoyle: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no indication that anybody from the Ministry of Justice team is coming to make a statement. It is not a matter for the Chair, but it is certainly on the record and people are now aware of it.

Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

Lindsay Hoyle: Before I call Naomi Long, I remind Members that the mover of the motion has 10 to 15 minutes. Twelve Back Benchers wish to take part in the debate, as well as the Front Benchers.

Naomi Long: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
	I am pleased to bring this debate to Parliament today. As someone who believes that equality and religious freedom are fundamental to democratic society, and that both must be promoted and protected, I have continued to work extremely hard in Parliament to promote religious freedom at home and abroad. I recognise that that freedom must extend not only to Christians and our beliefs, but to those of other faiths, and that it includes the right to freedom from religion for those who are not believers.
	As hon. Members may be aware, I am Open Doors’s official representative in the House of Commons, and have been working closely with it on these issues. Its world watch list, which highlights the 50 countries where it is most difficult to live as a Christian, is a vital tool in monitoring restrictions on religious freedom throughout the world. That list should be of interest to all of us, given the links between religious persecution and the rescinding of civil liberties more generally.
	As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, today I want to look at our report, “Article 18: an orphaned right”, which explores the restrictions on freedom of religion and belief throughout the world, including the particularly heavy price currently being paid by Christians. Article 18 of the United Nation’s declaration of human rights is a noble vision of religious freedom for all, but it is sadly not the reality for many, or even most. It is a far cry from reality, and that is a point to which I will return.

David Burrowes: I thank the hon. Lady for bringing forward this important issue, which is increasingly gaining attention across the House. She made the point that there are Members in this House of the Christian faith, of other faiths and of no faith, but we universally share the idea of the importance of religious liberty; that is the right thing to do, not just for those of all faiths and none, but socially, economically and politically.
	I congratulate the hon. Lady on the timeliness of the debate, because it was only yesterday that Pakistan’s Prime Minister visited and met our Prime Minister. At the same time, Pakistani Christians were campaigning, and making the point that a report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has said that the situation in Pakistan is the worst in the world for religious freedom. Will she comment on that?

Lindsay Hoyle: Hopefully, we will get shorter interventions. To be helpful to Members, I suggest an eight-minute limit on speeches.

Naomi Long: Yes, the situation in Pakistan is extremely serious, given that people are essentially being sentenced to death for exercising one of the fundamental rights—the right to change one’s religion. That is hugely important.
	As a Christian, my faith is part and parcel of who I am, and is part of the reason why I am involved in politics. I recognise the importance of faith and the constructive role that it can play in society and in our lives. However, I also recognise the damaging role that religious or any other ideological fundamentalism can have in restricting the freedoms of others. In the same way that my faith is important to me, I recognise the importance to others of their religious freedom, and that freedom, and the related right to freedom from religious belief, are hugely important and must be protected.
	While working on issues of religious freedom and reading some of the harrowing cases that have been discovered, I have been struck by how lucky we are to live in a country where we enjoy relative liberty. However, we should never be complacent and should always guard against the erosions of those freedoms. In our society, there are challenges in balancing the rights of not only those of different faiths, but of those who wish to live a life free from religious interference. The question of how we balance those competing rights needs careful and thoughtful assessment.
	The exclusion of all religion or faith from the public sphere is contrary to freedom of religion and belief, and so, equally, is the imposition of faith, or faith-based observances, practices or rules, on those who choose not to practise any religion. This tension has often left the right to freedom of religion without effective champions. As the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief said to the APPG when he visited Westminster, the religious are often more comfortable seeking protection for their own faith, but are wary of extending that freedom to those with whom they disagree.
	Conversely, those who are liberal and usually champion human rights and freedom are often wary of religion and reluctant to see its restriction in the same terms as other forms of persecution. It is therefore hugely important that we reflect on article 18 of the UN declaration of human rights, which sets out clearly what is meant by freedom of religion and belief:
	“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Mark Pritchard: As a co-sponsor of the debate, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this timely debate. On the United Nations and article 18, does the hon. Lady agree that the UN needs to do more, as does its Human Rights Council, and some of the council’s members, who do not have particularly good records when it comes to religious freedom and freedom of speech in their country?

Naomi Long: That is a hugely important point, and I hope that as we explore those issues today, we can focus on those member states that do not make their full contribution, either at home or in the international sphere.
	Article 18 remains the benchmark against which the enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief should be measured on a global scale. It protects traditional,
	non-traditional and new religious beliefs and practices, as well as numerous beliefs not associated with divine or transcendent powers and not of a religious nature. Everyone has the freedom to manifest their religion or belief, either alone or together with others, publicly or privately. No one should be subject to coercion that would impair their freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of someone else’s choice; nor is discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief permissible.
	Unlike many other human rights, freedom of religion or belief is as yet not directly addressed in a focused United Nations convention. As a consequence, this freedom has for many years been something of a “residual” right, and in practice, it remains on the margins of the family of human rights. However, research has found that almost 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of Government restrictions on freedom of religion, or in countries where those with certain religious affiliations face a high level of hostility, and that figure is rising. Across the globe, there is widespread denial of freedom of worship, and of freedom to teach, promote and publicly express one’s religion and beliefs.
	The APPG’s report instances examples of state intimidation, discrimination and violence towards people on account of their religion or belief, as well as situations in which states simply do not offer adequate protection from persecution by non-state actors. That is not limited to any one region or form of religion. As I mentioned, we are only too aware of the deeply troubling scale of the violations of freedom of religion or belief worldwide. Whether it is the Baha’is in Iran, Christians in the middle east, Jewish people in Europe or atheists in Indonesia, what we are exploring today is a truly global concern that affects the full range of religious and non-religious beliefs.
	I want to look briefly at why we need to protect religious freedom. It is vital to remember the importance of protecting freedom of religion or belief in a wider context. Although it is important in its own right, it is also crucial to achieving a wide range of foreign policy goals, such as the prevention of conflict. Violations of freedom of religion or belief often involve the violent persecution of both individuals and groups, and often take the form of discrimination in access to education, employment and health services; limitations in the ability of individuals to marry or retain custody of children; limitations in the right to publish literature or participate in the media; or limitations on the right to preserve cultural and religious heritage. All those are important, both from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office perspective and from an international development perspective.
	It is a key dynamic of freedom of religion or belief that it is interconnected with a wide range of other political, social, economic and cultural rights, from freedom of expression and association to the prevention of poverty. That is recognised by the FCO, which stated:
	“In countries around the world, religious freedom is often crucial to ensuring conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding. Indeed, many conflicts have their roots in the tensions between different religious communities. Violence against a religious group can be a forewarning of wider conflict. Freedom of religion or belief is therefore important to achieving the UK's wider security agenda.”
	I also want to look at the nature of persecution, which is changing. Religious persecution, particularly that of Christians, is on the rise and is becoming more
	intense in more countries. The nature of this persecution is incredibly varied. In some situations, it will take the form of a squeeze, with pressure being applied, while in others it is in the form of smash, with recourse to violence. Either kind represents a denial of article 18 and should be resisted. From November 2012 to October 2013, Open Doors recorded 2,123 killings of Christians worldwide—nearly double the number for the previous year. Nigeria and Syria were the most prolific countries, followed by Pakistan and Egypt. For obvious reasons, it could be argued that those figures are conservative, if we think about the percentage of incidents reported and how frightened people often are.
	Recent trends suggest that squeeze pressure, where there is no physical violence but pressure is applied to prevent Christians and others from being able to express their beliefs freely, has increasingly become the main form of abuse. It is much harder to identify and document. However, perhaps as a result, it can be the most destructive and harmful to individuals and families. Life in the family sphere also suffers, in particular for those who exercise their right to change religion. Hostility from the state or neighbours can place not only the individual but the family under considerable pressure. That social and religious pressure can lead to pressure from within the family, with divorce and death threats common after conversion. The right to change religion is specifically protected by the wording of article 18, but there is a fear that denials of that right are not fully pursued in considerations at Government level.
	Persecution also impacts on the community sphere, manifesting itself in restrictions on employment or access to resources. There is evidence, for example, that Christian villagers are denied water from wells in northern Nigeria by reason of their faith. The social stigma involved in such cases cannot be underestimated. The creation of sectarian and ethnic conflicts over perceived differences in religion are often a linked issue, where those of a particular religious faith are ascribed traits or beliefs that are either shunned by the rest of the community or portrayed as disloyal or dishonourable to the community in which they reside. I am unsure that any Member present today could imagine having to keep their faith a secret to the point where they cannot trust anyone with that knowledge, not even family and friends—to know that to do so could mean death or injury for us or for our families. Simply being found in ownership of a bible, for example, can put someone in extreme physical danger.
	I want also to examine some of the main sources of denials of article 18 rights and to give a sense of quite how wide ranging and global the problem is. The report produced by the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief identifies two different but intrinsically linked dimensions of denials of freedom of religion or belief—direct state denial and state failures in the protection of freedom of religion.
	Direct state denial includes incidents in which the state either actively persecutes individuals and communities on the basis of their beliefs or denies them the possibility freely to choose what they believe, whether they it express it alone or as a community. Under that theme, we find instances of Islamic extremism, communist oppression and, in the most extreme cases, Government policies of eradication of either one faith or belief group or of all those who seek to exercise their freedoms.
	Islamic extremism is arguably currently the biggest threat to freedom of religion and belief. There has been a major exodus of Christians from the middle east following the Arab spring, and atheists in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have been heavily discriminated against, with laws against blasphemy being used to stifle free speech and freedom of belief.
	North Korea is a classic example of communist oppression and has been in the media of late after topping the Open Doors world watch list as the most difficult country on earth in which to be a Christian. I was honoured to host a meeting between Open Doors, Church leaders and North Korean exiles, during which we heard first hand of the persecution and abuse that Christians and other religious groups face in North Korea. It made for harrowing listening. Like others in that country, Christians have to survive under one of the most oppressive regimes in contemporary times while dealing with corruption, disease and hunger. Christianity is viewed with extreme suspicion as a western ideology, and I was deeply moved and disturbed to hear from those who have had family members disappear and be imprisoned due to their faith.
	The Baha’i faith and associated activities are officially banned in Iran, and its estimated 300,000 adherents have been subjected to a state policy of extinction. I have brought before the House previously the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran. Unfortunately, the situation has not improved. Places of worship, schools, cemeteries, properties and businesses have been destroyed or confiscated by the Iranian regime. The Government-controlled mass media disseminates anti-Baha’i propaganda and has created a sense of violence with impunity for attackers. Currently, 110 Baha’is are in prison, facing charges of espionage and threatening national security that potentially carry the death sentence.
	A state’s failure to protect freedom of religion or belief entails the denial of freedom to choose or reject religions. According to the Pew Research Centre’s religion and public life project, 39 state Governments hinder individuals in converting from one religion or belief to another. It is currently a particular problem in India, where several states have legislation that prevents or draws attention to religious conversions. In Indonesia, a young atheist was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after posting on a Facebook page set up for atheists. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have for decades been denied permission to open new churches.
	It is important to note the link between failed states and persecution. Freedom of religion and belief is often a major casualty of civic and political breakdown, and a lack of freedom of religion and belief could be a contributing factor in that breakdown. Particularly where it happens at a sub-state or regional level, it may not be recognised or fully understood that, although the state may not be the aggressor, if it fails to intervene to protect people, it is contributing to persecution.
	That is just a small glimpse of the range and degree of discrimination faced by people around the world due to their religious or non-religious beliefs. I could have highlighted many other cases, as I am sure other hon. and right hon. Members will today. I hope that the debate will serve a number of purposes. The first is to raise public awareness of the issue’s importance. We are resigned to the fact that the nation will not be crowded around their televisions this afternoon to watch the
	Parliament channel, but there will be those who have an active interest in learning more about the subject and in becoming more active advocates in defence of religious freedom as a result.
	The second purpose of the debate is to focus our attention and to encourage renewed vigour in our Government and abroad in defence of the principles. Having raised the matter with the Government before, I know that we are pushing at an open door, but we must continue to push. I have also met representatives of other Governments who have heard what has been raised in Parliament and have come to discuss matters with us, so I want to shine a light on the issue today to keep the conversation going.
	Finally, this debate is also an opportunity for hon. and right hon. Members to raise with the Government specific concerns about individual countries, faiths, and regimes, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

Lindsay Hoyle: With an eight-minute limit, I introduce Sir Tony Baldry.

Tony Baldry: For those of us older Members who find it difficult to count to eight, and because the clock is not working, could you give us a one-minute warning, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Oh, it is working; it has only just started. [Laughter.]
	Those of us who were born immediately after the war—I was born in the early 1950s—grew up with an innate optimism that each year would bring further progress. After all, the Nazis had been defeated in the second world war and the forces of tolerance had prevailed. We were growing up at time of huge improvements in medicine and the introduction of mass vaccination programmes. We were conscious of countries receiving their independence in the 1960s and the freedom that that brought. We were conscious of improvements in television and radio broadcasting and of people’s ability to access education in ways that had never previously been possible. Man was reaching the moon, and there were great scientific and technological advances. There was an innate belief that each year would bring greater progress, greater freedoms and a greater improvement in standards of living for people around the world. I suppose the only thing that remained outstanding was the iron curtain and the Soviet empire, which eventually disintegrated.
	It is sad, however, that as we look around the globe today—the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) expounded on this so well—we see a world that is in many ways going back to intolerance and barbarism. I recently went to Somalia, and the Foreign Office would only allow me to spend a single day there because of the threat posed by al-Shabaab, which has almost completely destroyed that country’s security. The day after I left Mogadishu, a huge car bomb killed seven people outside the palace that is the official residence of the President of Somalia. Prior to visiting Mogadishu, I had been in Juba, South Sudan, where it was almost impossible to get out of the city because of ethnic tensions between
	Dinka and Nuer. The country has almost completely disintegrated as a consequence of intolerance and conflict between tribes.
	Christians have been almost completely driven out of the middle east. Countries that had hitherto been tolerant of religious minorities are becoming increasingly intolerant. We have seen large numbers of Christians tragically murdered in Peshawar and Pakistani blasphemy laws applied with greater rigour.

Mark Pritchard: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Tony Baldry: I will not give way, because many colleagues want to speak, and I am about to come to the point my hon. Friend made earlier.
	The question for me is this: how do we start to return the world to some semblance of tolerance? My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) mentioned the United Nations. I think that this work has to be done at the highest international level, in the United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. A number of countries promote tolerance, and we have partners among Muslim states that are keen to promote tolerance, such as Jordan and Morocco.
	There are many international indices of corruption. I suggest to colleagues on the Treasury Bench that we ought to start thinking about international indices of tolerance, because that would allow us to make a judgment on how tolerant some countries are and to encourage them to follow the example of more tolerant countries. I remember being set an essay at school: “To what extent should the tolerant tolerate the intolerant?” I do not think that we should tolerate the intolerance whereby people are not allowed to practise their faith as they wish or to change their faith. Those are fundamental human rights.
	Much concern is expressed in this House about climate change and future resources, because we are concerned about the sort of world our children and grandchildren will inherit. I suggest that a world in which people can exchange ideas, pray without fear of being murdered and have a sense of identity is equally important for our children and grandchildren. These are not transitory concerns about what might be happening in one particular country at one particular time, for example what is happening today in Nigeria, Egypt, Iran or Iraq; they are fundamental concerns about the values of the world as a whole as we go forward through the 21st century.
	The Foreign Office, and particularly my noble Friend Baroness Warsi, has been doing a lot of excellent work on this, but we need to do more. The United Kingdom has a long history of religious tolerance, because we learnt from the Reformation and the counter-Reformation, when many people were burnt at the stake and some really horrific things happened. On Sunday I was proud to attend Roman Catholic mass in my constituency, where the community was saying goodbye to their priest, who has been the priest for Banbury for the past 10 years. Five continents were represented in that one congregation worshipping together harmoniously. I think that in all our communities in this country we have a great degree of tolerance.
	Therefore, I think that we should take a lead on this issue in the United Nations, both in the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights. It will need
	to be persistent work. It is just as important as climate change and many of the other issues that grip the United Nations and the major councils of the world. The ability to pray and worship as one wishes is a fundamental human right, and one that we, as elected democrats, should always seek to defend.

Siobhain McDonagh: This is a timely debate. I have been contacted by several constituents who are concerned about the oppression of Christians and those of other religions around the world. I am sure that other Members will raise those concerns today. During the recess, I was privileged to attend a speech given by our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, which Al-Arabiya News described as
	“a call to save besieged, moderate Islam”.
	I very much recommend the speech and hope that it will be read without preconceptions. It was a call to show tolerance towards those of other faiths and none, but not to tolerate those who distort religion and show no tolerance themselves.
	I wanted to take part in this debate because it is a timely reminder that this year is the 30th anniversary of an act of religious intolerance that deserves greater attention. I chair the all-party group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The community’s headquarters are in south London and its spiritual head, Mirza Masroor Ahmad, lives in the UK. One of the world’s biggest Ahmadiyya mosques, with a capacity of 10,000, is in Morden, so I have many Ahmadi constituents. They contribute greatly to this country and are well integrated. They live by the motto, “Love for all; hatred for none.” Indeed, their belief in peace and religious tolerance should be an inspiration to us all.
	However, in 1984 they were essentially outlawed when Pakistan passed the notorious Ordinance XX, which introduced the anti-Ahmadi laws. For many Britons, this example of religious persecution is simply not on the radar. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community is little known, despite having more than 15,000 mosques and a membership of tens of millions.

Jim Cunningham: Representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Coventry visited about six months ago. They do a tremendous amount of charity work. Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Nations could do a lot more to lift this matter up the agenda, because these people, along with Christians, are being persecuted in certain countries around the world?

Siobhain McDonagh: I entirely agree.
	The religion was founded in 1889. It arose out of the claim of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian that he was the long-awaited messiah whose advent was foretold by Mohammed. That puts it at odds with other Muslims who believe that Mohammed was the last prophet. However, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community believes that there are parallels between Ahmad and Jesus, as God sent both to end religious wars, condemn bloodshed and bring peace. Indeed, Ahmad taught that “jihad by the sword” has no place in Islam. Instead, he proposed a bloodless, intellectual “jihad of the pen” to defend
	Islam. Ahmad also warned his followers not to engage in irrational interpretations of the Koran or to misapply Islamic law.
	Ahmadis claim to be the only Islamic organisation that endorses a separation of mosque and state and champions the empowerment and education of women. In today’s Britain, we might regard such attitudes as modern, tolerant and secular. However, they are not shared by fundamentalist Muslims, who regard belief in a false prophet as heresy.
	Consequently, Ahmadis have long faced persecution, notably in Pakistan, where there have been repeated conflicts since the country’s creation in 1947. By 1974, riots, killings, attacks on mosques, arson and looting had become widespread, and Prime Minister Bhutto amended the constitution to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims. But it was Zia-ul-Haq’s Government in the 1980s that really sought to Islamicise Pakistan’s laws. Thirty years ago this week, his Ordinance XX was introduced to restrict Ahmadi freedom of religion. It means that Ahmadis cannot call themselves Muslim or the place in which they worship a mosque. If they do, they face up to three years in jail. Ahmadis cannot hold public meetings and are unable even to register to vote, because doing so would require them to deny their faith.
	Over the last 30 years, thousands of Ahmadis have been arrested, including the entire population of Rabwah—50,000 people—which was charged with practising Islamic worship. The consequence of the persecution is there for all to see. Since 1984, more than 230 Ahmadis have been killed, and nobody has ever been prosecuted for such murders and attacks. Their graveyards are routinely attacked and there are mass rallies calling for them to be killed. Children are harassed in schools and universities, and hit lists against Ahmadis are distributed. The police erase the kalima—the Islamic declaration of faith—from Ahmadi mosques, and have torn down minarets and sealed Ahmadi mosques. These affronts culminated in the Lahore attack four years ago this month, when nearly 100 Ahmadiyya Muslim worshippers were brutally murdered while they were at prayer.
	Persecution is an everyday reality for Ahmadis in Pakistan. According to Pakistan’s human rights commission, Ahmadis face the worst treatment of anyone in Pakistan. The media in Pakistan is often horribly anti-Ahmadi, broadcasting phrases like “Ahmadis deserve to die.” In particular, the Khatme Nabuwwat movement carries out regular activities to oppose Ahmadiyya Muslims, incites attacks against them in speeches and broadcasts, and coined the widely used phrase, “wajibul qatl”, which means, “those who deserve to be killed”.
	I want to take this opportunity of the 30th anniversary of Ordinance XX to urge the British Government to raise with Pakistan, as a matter of priority, the issue of religious intolerance against the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. I am concerned about this because the discrimination against Ahmadis that is embedded in Pakistan’s constitution emboldens militants by giving legitimacy to their intolerance. As the former Foreign Secretary David Miliband said:
	“It is when the international community has taken its eye off the ball in Pakistan that instability has increased...Internally, Pakistan has a duty to protect minority groups and needs the support of its allies to do so.”
	As Tony Blair argued last week, we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to extremism, because any increase in Islamist activities elsewhere only strengthens those with
	a virulent strain of religious intolerance—and that affects us here in the UK. It is, therefore, in our interests for Britain to work with Pakistan’s Government to persuade them to show more tolerance to the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. There have already been reports of intimidation against British Ahmadiyya Muslims. For their sake, and for the sake of freedom of thought, conscience and religion here, we need to support the Ahmadiyya Muslim community in Pakistan. This is a timely debate. For 30 years, a legitimate religion has been targeted by one of the most populous countries in the world—one that has access to nuclear weapons. It is in none of our interests to stay silent.
	Of course, Pakistan is not the only country in which the Ahmadi people are persecuted. In the short time I have available, I should like to refer to Saudi Arabia. Even though this is the most holy country for Muslims, Ahmadis are not permitted to visit Mecca. In fact, they are not allowed to practise their faith at all. I am especially concerned about the treatment of two Ahmadiyya worshippers who, for the past two years, have been held in prison there, without charge, for apostasy. In reality, they are prisoners of conscience who have committed no crime other than religious belief. There is no information about their welfare or status, and the Ahmadiyya community is obviously very concerned about their condition. It also believes that the international community, including Britain, should be doing more to apply pressure to the Saudi Government to cease such breaches of human rights.
	This debate has shown that there is a widespread belief that freedom of conscience matters. I hope that Britain will want to lead the way. For the sake of everyone in this country, including the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, that is the right thing to do.

Julian Lewis: The thoughtful and very disturbing speech by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is a piece of a jigsaw that I hope will be assembled in the course of this debate, building up a picture in country after country, affecting religion after religion—and not always just religious groups and communities—and showing a certain common template. The word that I expect to hear over and again is “intolerance”, which was flagged up by the opening speakers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who has steered this topic to the Floor of the House and introduced it so comprehensively and with such a depth of detail.
	Before I come on to questions of religious intolerance, I should like hon. Members to cast their minds back to 1978, when the great director Michael Crichton brought a terrifying film to the cinema screen. The name of the film was “Coma”; I do not know whether that rings a bell with any hon. Members. It was a fictional story about how people would be placed in a hospital for minor operations, reduced to the state of a living vegetable, and then have their organs taken from them and sold for huge profits in an extremely sinister way. I found that film immensely unsettling, but I was able to comfort myself with the thought that, well, it was only fiction and nothing like that could really happen.
	Unfortunately, something like that has happened and is happening, apparently, to this day. In this connection, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who sadly cannot be with us today, for putting into the schedules of Parliament a meeting at which I learned about the persecution of Falun Gong in China. We are talking about not just religious intolerance, but the intolerance of atheistic regimes such as the communist regimes of China and North Korea towards groups such as Falun Gong that are spiritual but not really religions. North Korea has been identified in report after report as the most dangerous place, or at least one of the most dangerous places, in which to be a Christian in the present day.
	I find the phrase “organ harvesting” in relation to China and Falun Gong rather inappropriate. I would call it murder and butchery for money, which is what appears to be going on. It is a profitable business for the Chinese: I understand that a kidney can raise $62,000 and a heart more than $130,000. Interestingly, there has been an enormous increase in the number of transplantation centres in China in recent years, yet there is no national scheme for organ donation that could possibly account for the very large numbers of organs being made available for money by the Chinese.
	It is not, I believe, denied that the organs of executed prisoners are used by the Chinese Government for that purpose. Many studies, including by special rapporteurs for the United Nations, have drawn attention to that terrible trade. As somebody from a Jewish background who read rather more than was good for my mental health at too early an age about what had happened in the medical block at the Buchenwald concentration camp, I think that the idea that that sort of atrocity could be going on in this day and age is absolutely unbelievable and abhorrent.

David Burrowes: I thank my hon. Friend referring on the Floor of the House to the Falun Gong, which does not always get the attention it deserves. I have some constituents who practise Falun Gong and it is the most peaceful of groups. When it campaigns here and in China, it does so peacefully. It is not a physical threat to the Chinese Government, but it may well be a cultural threat because of its different views. It is standing up for its beliefs and views, and if we are going to stand up for Christians and others, we need to stand up for Falun Gong as well.

Julian Lewis: My hon. Friend, who stands up for Christians and other groups remarkably well—as I have had occasion to observe over years in this place—is absolutely right. In fact, my understanding is that, originally, the Chinese authorities were quite well disposed to Falun Gong. It was only when it became hugely popular that they felt that any mass popular movement, even one as harmless as that, posed a threat to their totalitarian control.
	I fully expect my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), should she catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I hope she will, to give us chapter and horrible verse about what is happening to Christians in North Korea. I want to flag up the fact that the splendid report that the United Nations arranged to be compiled describes what is going on in North Korea as analogous to the crimes committed by the Nazis. It states:
	“In many instances, the violations of human rights found by the commission constitute crimes against humanity. These are not
	mere excesses of the State; they are essential components of a political system that has moved far from the ideals on which it claimed to be founded”.
	Pakistan has been mentioned in one context today and I am now going to mention it in another. In June 2009, a Roman Catholic woman, Asia Bibi, got into an argument with some Muslim neighbours over whether she should be allowed to drink from the same water supply as them. As a result, she was accused of blasphemy. I have to say that the blasphemy laws of Pakistan are a very handy weapon for those who have an enemy anywhere in society, because all they have to do is to say that someone has defamed or insulted the Prophet or the religion and that person may, like Asia Bibi, find herself under sentence of death.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend is speaking about Pakistan. Earlier, hon. Members agreed that the United Nations should do more. Does he agree that the Commonwealth should also do more, particularly for Christians and other religious minorities that are being persecuted in Pakistan, India and other parts of the Commonwealth, and that the Commonwealth human rights working group needs to be far more proactive?

Julian Lewis: That is absolutely central to the whole question. If the Commonwealth is good for anything at all, it is good for asserting the moral authority and best values that have bound our countries together. If we in this free Parliament do not speak out for oppressed minorities, nobody else will do so effectively.
	To revert to the case of Asia Bibi, who remains under sentence of death, what is even more tragic is that the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, who visited her in prison, was murdered as a result of supporting her and opposing the blasphemy laws, as was the only Christian member of Pakistan’s Cabinet, the Minority Affairs Minister, Shahbaz Bhatti. The prevailing circumstances in Pakistan really are atrocious.

Rehman Chishti: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Lewis: I will, but I have very little time left.

Rehman Chishti: I have previously raised the issue of the blasphemy laws in this place. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real concern about the Asia Bibi case is that her appeal has been delayed and delayed for four years, and that such an indefinite delay is wrong for her and her family?

Julian Lewis: Absolutely. My hon. Friend knows far more about this subject than I do, and I hope that he will contribute to the debate.
	In the less than a minute that I have remaining, I want to end on a slightly more optimistic point. Although the persecution of the Baha’i community in Iran remains severe, a very recent development is that Ayatollah Abdol-Hamid Masoumi-Tehrani has rather bravely reached out to the Baha’i community by making a presentation to them and other faith communities. A lot depends on what happens to this ayatollah, but if change is to come, it will come slowly and it will involve such gestures. Let us keep our eye on what happens to this particular cleric in Iran, and let us hope that the reaction to his welcome gesture is positive and encouraging.

Lyn Brown: The decision of the Backbench Business Committee to hold such a debate is of real interest to my constituents. I want to mention two of them, Ms Odutola and Ms Ofori, who contacted me to request me to speak in the debate. They asked me to attend and to raise their concerns about the increasing persecution of Christians around the world. They wrote passionately about the lack of religious freedom worldwide, which has been clearly reflected in the news lately. They pointed to the alleged targeting of Christians in areas in Syria, and to the increasing anti-Christian violence in Nigeria.
	Preparing for this debate gave me the opportunity to reflect on the excellent report by the all-party group on international religious freedom. I was particularly shocked to learn that 75%—I repeat, 75%—of the world’s population live in countries where their religious freedom is severely curtailed. The report reflects on the weakness of international actors in protecting article 18 freedoms and suggests there is a role for the UK to play. It serves to remind us that religious persecution is not the preserve of one religious minority community alone. The report is a highly commendable piece of work that deserves greater attention.
	In the Central African Republic, the terrible scenes of violence have had a religious dimension, with both Muslims and Christians suffering attacks. The Muslim minority community is at particular risk, and Human Rights Watch has reported that entire Muslims communities have fled in real fear of their lives.
	In Nigeria, the militant Islamist group, Boko Haram, terrorises the local population, especially Christians, and has left more than 2,000 people dead. I know that the schoolgirls who were kidnapped and are being held by that group, as well as their families, will be in the thoughts and prayers of those in this House.
	On Europe’s doorstep, in Belarus, a Government with little respect for human rights regularly attack religious freedoms. Members of unregistered religious groups can be subjected to up to three years in prison. Religious groups are often targeted by the security services through raids of their meetings and the destruction of their literature.
	I was pleased that the report highlighted the fact that the repression of religious freedom by a state often coincides with the infringement or diminution of other human rights. Experience tells us that any Government who reduce religious freedom must also curtail the rights of free assembly and free speech. Countries that have laws that restrict religious freedom also tend to have repressive laws on reproductive rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights.
	I am reminded of a visit that I made to Uganda with the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). We saw a state that was considering removing reference to the use of a condom from its successful HIV/AIDS campaign. Members of the community told us that the decision was based on a fundamental mistake about Christian doctrine. Instead of the ABC that was being used to prevent AIDS—abstinence, be faithful and use a condom—the state wanted to present the population with a single message: abstinence alone is the way to prevent the spread of AIDS. That religious intervention, which we saw in 2005, seems to have taken root and to
	be affecting other policy areas. I am sure that the House would again like to condemn the obscene attacks on LGBT rights in Uganda and the new Anti-Homosexuality Act that has broadened the criminalisation of same-sex relations, with the threat of life in prison for those who are convicted.
	For those of us living in the UK, it would be easy to think that international religious freedom is a distant concern and that the repression is happening way beyond our borders. That would be a mistake, because what happens abroad impacts on community cohesion here at home. International religious oppression can fuel tensions with and between communities in Britain. We must stand up for religious freedom and build more cohesive communities in this country, as well as supporting religious freedom abroad.
	Community cohesion is sometimes seen as a concept that clashes with religious freedom, but that analysis is incorrect. A cohesive community is one that accepts or, in fact, embraces diversity, and one where those of different religions or of no religion are included in the life of the community and do not fear persecution. A mutually tolerant, pluralistic community is the one kind of community that can be truly cohesive.
	I was glad recently to see the Government take a strong line in challenging behaviours and views that run counter to liberal democratic values, including the right of all people to be free from persecution. However, at a time when the number of religious schools is increasing, I regret that the Government have diluted the role of schools in promoting community cohesion. We must do more to strengthen the bonds between people in Britain and work through schools, community groups and charities to show that what unites us is far greater than anything that can divide us.
	Although we must champion and respect the right of all people to follow the religion of their choice or, indeed, no religion, that does not mean that we should ignore practices that breach basic human rights because of the usually bogus claim that they are fundamental to a particular religious belief. Too often, liberal societies such as ours have failed to challenge certain abuses because of the mistaken belief that it would offend religious sensibilities. We have an overriding duty as law-makers to ensure that girls have the same educational opportunities as boys, that they are protected from abuse and from female genital mutilation, and that no one should be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to.
	The issues that we are discussing today are of global importance, but also of local importance. We must always be mindful of the impact that international forces, including the repression of religious freedoms, can have on domestic community cohesion. Rather than allow communities to be divided, we must work to ensure that they are strong, confident and united both internationally and here at home.

Fiona Bruce: It is a privilege to speak on this subject in the House. Since I last spoke about atrocities in North Korea, the devastating 400-page report of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human
	Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has been published. I pay tribute to Mr Justice Kirby, who chaired the commission. More than 80 first-hand testimonies were taken from witnesses and victims at public hearings in Seoul, Tokyo, London and Washington DC, and there were more than 240 confidential interviews and written representations. The commission found a gravity and scale of violation of the freedoms of thought, conscience and religion that have no parallel in the contemporary world. Indeed, they are almost completely denied, as are the rights of freedom of opinion, expression, information and association.
	The North Korean state considers the spread of Christianity a particularly serious threat, since it challenges ideologically the official personality cult of the leadership. Christians are prohibited from practising their religion and persecuted in particularly severe ways.
	I wish to focus largely on the fact that the freedom of thought of every individual in the North Korean state is minimised. Indeed, there is an attempt to virtually eliminate it from childhood. I will quote some of the examples in the commission’s report:
	“The State operates an indoctrination machine that takes root from childhood”,
	which is intended to
	“manufacture absolute obedience to the Supreme Leader…effectively to the exclusion of”
	any independent thought whatever. One witness said:
	“You are brainwashed…don’t know the life outside. You are brainwashed from the time you know how to talk, about 4 years of age, from nursery school, brainwashing through education, this happens everywhere in life…even at home.”
	Children are taught even before they can read that the only drawings that they should make are those of the supreme leader or those that would give him pleasure.

Stephen Pound: It is crucial that the hon. Lady’s points are ventilated internationally, because we simply must expose this horror. Does she agree that, although there is no hierarchy of horror, one of the most terrifying aspects of the North Korean society is family guilt by association? Children who are born of mothers in concentration camps will live their entire lives there. Is that not taking the horror to a new, nightmarish level that is almost unprecedented?

Fiona Bruce: I absolutely agree. Guilt by association, whereby if one member of the family offends the regime three generations can be incarcerated, is absolutely heinous.
	For children, participation in mass games is required, to instil a high degree of organisation, discipline and collectivism. Schoolchildren, conscious that a single slip in their action might spoil the mass gymnastic performance, make every effort to subordinate their thoughts and actions to the collective. One student described in her testimony to the commission how she had missed an entire semester of university education because her class was required to practise for six months, ten hours a day, for a parade. Participants fainted from exhaustion, and many suffered injuries. Those who repeated mistakes were made to remain on the training ground until midnight as a punishment. She told of a seven-year-old boy who had practised through the intense pain of appendicitis and then died.
	Children in the DPRK are introduced at an early stage to confession and criticism sessions resonant of the Nazi period. They gather in groups weekly to describe how they have grieved the leadership’s teaching during the previous week, and they are encouraged to identify the failings of at least one of their peers in the same group. The number of indoctrination sessions across the country appears to be increasing.
	All citizens have to become members of workers’ parties, and from seven onwards children are made members of the children’s union—no doubt so that the indoctrination that happens in school can continue outside as well. Membership of the association serves several basic functions. One is to organise and monitor the daily activities of individuals. The foremost duty is to worship the Kim family, and another is to secure the nation through the monitoring and assessment of loyalty. In other words, any independent thought or belief, and certainly any independent faith, is to be eliminated. The possibility of holding such thoughts is to be extracted from individuals before they can think independently for themselves, from the earliest stage of their life.
	The propaganda continues in local administrations, place of work and at various other levels. Pictures of the leader are promoted everywhere, and any offence against the leadership will be punished severely. One witness described how his father had unintentionally soiled an image of Kim Jong-il, the leader, which was printed in a used newspaper that he had used to mop up spilt drink. He was sent to a political prison camp. The rest of the family were spared his fate, but suffered years of harsh official discrimination.
	In another testimony, a journalist who made a typographical error and misspelt the leader’s name in a report was sent to a camp for six months as a punishment. The central propaganda unit ensures that all content prepared by journalists goes through several layers of review and censorship to ensure that it is completely in line with state ideology.
	There is some hope. CDs and other forms of new media are getting into North Korea, so that not only is information getting out and telling us what is happening, but information about the world outside is also going in, albeit at great risk to those who take it in. One witness in China informed the commission that a relative of hers had watched a CD-ROM and given it friends. He was arrested by the local authorities, publicly tried and executed. Another person who had imported “capitalist goods” such as CD-ROMs from South Korea was told that they would be shot or imprisoned for 10 to 15 years, depending on the severity of the crime and level of involvement. People living along the border with China have started to use mobile phones. It means that information is going into North Korea through that route, but again, those who are discovered are subject to interrogation, often under torture.
	One man tell of how, in detention, agents took turns beating him with pieces of wood; he lost his teeth and his lower jaw. Another was interrogated and severely tortured for using a mobile phone, and this resulted in head injuries and fractured bones. Writers talk about the fact that to write in protest is equivalent to death. Someone can slip just once in their writing and disappear over night. Their family can be gone over night—three generations wiped out.
	It is a privilege to speak about this in the House, and I know that people in Korea take note. When I first spoke in this House of the sufferings of the people in North Korea, I was deeply moved to receive a letter from their compatriots in South Korea which said, “Carry on.” Today I say to the people of North Korea: “Be encouraged. We are not unaware of your sufferings. In a global age, testimony of your plight is increasingly reaching the world, not least in the form of Mr Justice Kirby’s authoritative and powerful report. The world now knows and we must not stand by without acting. Hold fast. Change must come. Your plight cannot last for ever. History has shown that kingdoms rise and fall; chains can be loosed and tyrants pulled down. Know that MPs across this House are deeply concerned about your suffering, and will continue to speak out about it until change comes.”

Fiona Mactaggart: I do not have a faith, but I represent the constituency of Slough which, according to a recent survey, is the most religiously observant place in the country. I respect faith because when I am campaigning for human rights and justice, I am often standing beside people who are there because they are motivated by their religious belief. Because I am motivated by human rights, I am glad that this debate uses the language of international human rights instruments that connects freedom of religion with freedom of conscience.
	In the United Kingdom, we believe that we are a human rights society, and we talk a lot about the responsibilities that human rights bring with them. In my view, one of those responsibilities is ensuring that other people enjoy the same rights that we do. That is at the heart of this debate. In her excellent introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) pointed out that one of the most difficult things about human rights is the point at which people’s human rights conflict. That is a challenge for all of us, and our debate about human rights in Britain has been insufficiently aware of the need to think through issues of conflicts of rights. Unless we do that, we will fail to guarantee everyone’s human rights effectively.
	We think of the UK as a country of religious freedoms, but I have been concerned about the way in which people who seek to exercise their freedom of religion have sometimes suggested that that gives them the right to deny other people’s rights—most obviously when people seeking to run a bed and breakfast have felt that their Christian faith gives them the right to refuse to let a room to people who are homosexual. Many people who think they support the right to freedom of religion too often want that right to be a privilege for their religion, rather than someone else’s. That happens around the world. In some countries, it is manifested in the dress laws. In Saudi Arabia, people like me have to cover up. In France, my Sikh constituents are not expected to wear their turbans in public places and my Muslim constituents would not be allowed to wear the niqab or the hijab. I find both those approaches equally unacceptable.
	We have heard in this debate that the issue is much more serious than matters of dress. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about the Ahmadi massacre. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) talked about the evil
	organ harvesting of Falun Gong. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) talked about the complete failure of freedom of conscience and belief in North Korea, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) talked about the issues facing Christians and Muslims in Africa. All these forms of discrimination are ones that I have taken up on behalf of constituents.
	At the moment, I am particularly concerned by the elections in India. Narendra Modi is likely to be elected, but in 2002 he did nothing to prevent a pogrom of Muslims in Gujarat. But in 1984 his opposition, the Congress party, was equally responsible for the Delhi massacre of Sikhs. That is why I make the point about the importance of not privileging one religion, and the need to recognise the human right to freedom of conscience and belief. It is also why I was glad to join the Ahmadi Muslims in Slough last week at their 10th peace conference. I was equally glad to parade with the Sikhs in Slough during their Vaisakhi celebrations at the weekend. Those are all expressions of the beliefs and joys of faith. As British politicians, we do not have the right to tell other countries how they are run, but we have an absolute responsibility to ensure that countries that claim to be democratic uphold basic standards of international human rights. I believe we have a duty to point out where countries fail to do that.
	Our country does not always get it right. I was very pleased to support Hardeep Singh, someone living very close to my constituency, in his libel case against a so-called Sikh saint. In the judgment on the case, the judge quoted the decision of Munby:
	“Religion … is not the business of government or of the secular courts. So the starting point of the law is an essentially agnostic view of religious beliefs and a tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity.”
	I believe we should engender that
	“tolerant indulgence to religious and cultural diversity”
	all around the world.

Alan Beith: I hope the hon. Lady is not arguing that it is impossible to have complete religious freedom in states in which a particular religion has a kind of legal status that it has built up historically. That was the case in, for example, Lutheran Scandinavian countries, which are exemplars of practising freedom of religion and supporting it throughout the world.

Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. Gentleman is in many ways right. We have a state religion in this country, too. Our Queen is the defender of the faith in the Church of England. We have a model that shows it is possible. Pakistan would claim to be a Muslim country, but it should be able to tolerate those who call themselves Muslims but whom mainstream Muslims do not accept are Muslims, and it should be able to tolerate Christians who want the right to practise their belief. It seems to me that this debate is fundamentally a debate about human rights. It is fundamentally a debate about our responsibility to protect the rights of others, including those with whom we fundamentally disagree. That is the message we should be giving to such states to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.
	We have failed to educate people in Britain about the nature of a human right. We have failed to tell people that the responsibilities that come with human rights are the responsibilities to protect the rights of others. We have allowed our red top newspapers to lie about there being a human right to pornography in prison or a human right to Kentucky Fried Chicken for a burglar stuck on a roof. All those are lies. The truth is that after the second world war, the world came together and devised instruments, such as the United Nations declaration, the European convention on human rights and the asylum convention, which all relate to our duty to protect the human rights of other people. One of the fundamental rights is the right to respect for one’s beliefs, even when they are wrong.
	That is the message that should come from this debate. We should take the responsibility ourselves, after this debate, to challenge the ignorance about all human rights that I am afraid too many Members have winked at for too long. Unless we challenge that, we are making space for the kind of evil denial of the human right to freedom of thought and religion that we are debating today.

Bob Neill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on initiating the debate. I am very happy to be one of its sponsors. We have heard thoughtful contributions from all hon. Members who have taken part. I will not repeat the important points that have been made, but it is worth restating the universality of the freedom of conscience and belief. It is important that Britain, as a significant player in many international institutions, stands up consistently and vocally for that freedom. We should not be tempted, in the context of foreign or other policy, to put such action into the category of things that are too difficult to do, or too inconvenient when balancing other interests. It is a fundamental part of our commitment as a democracy.

Rehman Chishti: My hon. Friend has mentioned our international obligations. In that connection, may I draw attention to the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran? The international community is currently attempting to bring Iran into the fold in the context of the nuclear issue, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should also stress that human rights must be a key priority for the country if it is to become part of that community?

Bob Neill: There is no doubt that we must move very carefully, and must ensure that Iran is genuinely complying with all the international obligations with which an accepted state should comply. Although—as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—there has been an occasional act of generosity towards Christian and other faith communities in Iran, it remains a matter of concern that since the election of President Rohani many Christians have been arrested, and more than 50 remain in prison. I think that the new regime is very much on probation, and that Britain, together with our allies, must be vigilant in ensuring that not too easy a ride is given to those who may wish to push it back in a reactionary direction.
	Iran is indeed an important factor, but I want to say a little about two other issues which, although well known, are worth referring to again. What is happening in Syria is a horror story by any account. It is a horror story for all Syrians, regardless of their faith and regardless of where they find themselves in that country. There is particular concern about what is increasingly being shown to be the targeted persecution of the Christian community in Syria. The Christians are not alone: Alawites and Shi’a and Sunni Muslims have also been targeted in some cases. However, there is a real fear that the Christian community—which, after all, is one of the oldest communities in the middle east: we all remember the Damascene conversion, which is one of the roots of Christianity and dates back to its very earliest days—is under unacceptable and very frightening pressure.
	The Christian charity Open Doors has been doing valuable work in screening many international media sources to find examples of persecutions of Christians. Its global researches have established that some 2,123 Christians have been killed because of their faith, and that 1,213 of them have been killed in Syria. We have also seen the systemic targeting of Christian churches, 83 in Syria and 492 in Egypt. Mass graves were discovered in the ancient Christian town of Sadad, which had been overrun by rebel extremists.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is as informative as he is generous. Does he agree that one of the most extraordinary aspects of his speech so far is the fact that it has featured no examples of the mass conversions from Christianity that occurred in the Ottoman empire? Should we not be remembering, in our thoughts and in our prayers, the Christians who keep their faith even in the most horrendous circumstances? Is that not truly the most remarkable fact that has emerged from this afternoon’s debate?

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Those of us who are not afraid to regard ourselves and publicly label ourselves as Christians should consider that to be an important and integral part of the faith that binds him and me, and many others in the Chamber, to the Christians who are suffering outside. That strength is the great value that Christianity brings not only to this country, but to the world as a whole. As we know, there have been examples of mass conversion elsewhere in the world. Reference has been made to Nigeria, and heaven knows what has befallen some of the young girls who were abducted recently in the north of that country.
	It is important that the western powers, in seeking to bring peace to Syria and to deal with a vile regime in the form of the Assads, do not allow that regime to be replaced by one of the many others that are dominated by foreign jihadis who are determined to destroy a vulnerable community in one of its ancient heartlands.
	Although we of course welcome the opportunity for democracy that the Arab spring has brought, we must accept that there is a real concern that it has also brought something of a winter of persecution for Christians throughout the wider middle east. Open Doors and Christian Solidarity Worldwide have done a lot of work in this area. They have discovered, for example, that some 200,000 Christians are thought to have fled Egypt—a country where I have personal connections and which I
	have visited—since the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak. He was not perfect, but I am afraid that the situation for Christians has deteriorated greatly since then. At the end of March, a Christian woman, Mary Sameh George, was beaten, stabbed and shot to death in Cairo, apparently because in her car—a car she used to deliver food and medicine to the elderly—there was a crucifix. As Bishop Kyrillos of the Coptic Church has said, when such things occur, there is no sense that even the present regime has a full commitment to tackling those issues. It is very important that Britain and our western allies use every available means of pressure to ensure that, if the new regimes in Egypt and elsewhere want to be accepted in the world community, religiously motivated sectarianism is bore down on wherever it comes from.
	We have sought to do our bit. Many parliamentarians from this place and the other place are part of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, where we have the opportunity to debate these issues at length. However, we need that consistent approach from Her Majesty’s Government. Support for religious minorities is not tradeable against any other interest in the conduct of foreign policy.
	The examples overseas are important, but I want to finish by saying a word or two about the situation at home. I am not afraid to define my political activity as influenced in part by my faith, as is that of many others, and we should not therefore allow a degree, which we sometimes see, of surprisingly illiberal secularism to drown out the mention of faith in our public space. I was genuinely saddened that the Prime Minister—indeed, it could have been the leader of any other major political party—was criticised for having raised the importance of faith in the public debate. That letter from a number of no doubt eminent intellectuals was the most illiberal exposition of liberalism that I have seen in many a long day, and we ought to say that clearly.

Mark Durkan: On the miscasting of those who have a motivating faith in so much of what they do, does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that this Government have removed the barrier to access to DFID match funding schemes for faith-related groups such as Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Trócaire? Those organisations are not proselytising when they are working in the developing world; they are supporting people of all faiths and of none in key development, motivated by their faith but not pushing it on anyone or threatening anyone.

Bob Neill: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like doubtless virtually every other hon. Member, I have seen constituency examples of the work done by faith-based charities from a range of faiths. I am thinking of the work of the Alawi community, for example, which has been mentioned, and of the work of an evangelical church—not my tradition within the Church—in St. Paul’s Cray, in my community. It is doing great work to change lives, deal with drug addiction and improve access to education. My constituent Shekhor Tarat, who is a trustee of a Hindu temple, is doing valuable work for the vulnerable members of a small community in east London. All those faiths are important, and it is critical that we recognise the integral part they play in our civic society.
	This debate is timely, and it is time to stand up for the importance of faith and tolerance within these universal values. It is important that we recognise that we must always be vigilant about that, not only abroad but—albeit, happily, in a less stark context—at home.

Mark Lazarowicz: I welcome the fact that the Backbench Business Committee has found time for us to debate this important issue today. Many of us have had constituents contacting us with concerns about the many examples of persecution in all too many countries of people simply because of their faith, beliefs or philosophical views. Most of the correspondence I have received has come from those concerned about the situation faced by Christians in all too many countries of the world: persecution that can range from people being unable to practise their faith or at least to hold services in public, to individual Christians and whole Christian communities facing injury, the destruction of their homes and livelihoods, and, all too often, torture and death.
	Among the cases raised with me have been the terrible situation in North Korea, and not just for Christians, although Christians in that country have perhaps suffered worse than those anywhere in the world; the increasing attacks on Christians in parts of Nigeria; and violence affecting Christians in Pakistan. The Church of Scotland has written to all Scottish MPs highlighting its concerns about the way in which blasphemy laws in Pakistan disproportionately affect Christians and non-Muslim minority faiths in that country, a subject about which many Members have already spoken. Many of those who have contacted me feel that the plight of Christians in many parts of the world has not, at least until recently, obtained the publicity it ought to obtain. I hope that today’s debate will help to reassure those who are concerned that these issues should be raised in Parliament and that our Government should be acting on them.
	As many Members have already emphasised, it is not just the situation of Christians about which we should be concerned, so let me give a few more examples. Constituents have raised concerns with me about the incredibly terrible situation of the Muslim Rohingya in Burma. Members of the Shi’a community in Edinburgh have highlighted the killings and attacks on Shi’a, not just in Pakistan, where many members of that community have links, but elsewhere. I have also been contacted by the Edinburgh Baha’i community about the situation that members of their faith face in Iran. I pick out those examples simply because they have been raised with me by constituents, but of course I could have given many other examples and spoken about many other faiths.
	In that context, it is worth highlighting just how extensive is the harassment, discrimination and persecution of people throughout the world because of their faith. I am sure many Members will be aware of the recent report published by the Pew Research Centre, which discovered that in the six years from 2006 to 2012 across the world harassment had been faced by Christians in 151 countries; Muslims in 135 countries; Jews in 96 countries; followers of traditional religions in 52 countries; Hindus in
	33 countries; Buddhists in 28 countries; and other faiths in 77 countries. That is an incredible number of countries across the world and that needs to be emphasised and highlighted.

Rehman Chishti: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the number of countries where persecution is taking place. Going back to what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, does he agree that there is a real concern that, given what the BJP has done in Gujarat and the association with extremist parties, if we get a BJP Government in India there is likely to be more persecution and division than unity in India?

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we are talking about values and principles that need to apply universally, across faiths, countries and political parties. He brings me to my next point, which is that although in some of the cases of harassment I have spoken about the authorities do what they can to prevent such discrimination and persecution, in others the state actually explicitly promotes such persecution, and where it does not do so explicitly still turns a blind eye, tacitly promoting, supporting and allowing that persecution and discrimination to take place.
	It is not just those who profess or are identified with a particular faith who suffer discrimination and persecution; as we know all too well, in many parts of the world agnostics, humanists, free thinkers and atheists would not be able to express their views in public without facing dire consequences.
	Today’s debate is also about freedom of thought as well as freedom of conscience and of religion. It would take many hours to list all the examples in the world where freedom of thought and the ability to express those thoughts are dangerous, and the consequences of doing so can range from social ostracism and loss of employment rights right through to imprisonment and death. That is why it is so important to emphasise and assert, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) did, the importance of putting our discussion today in the context of the promotion, defence and championing of universal human rights, which apply to all peoples in all countries and in all contexts.
	Today’s debate has highlighted cases from around the world and allowed Members of this House to give witness to the suffering and persecution of so many people because of their faith, conscience or belief. What we need now is more action. I look forward to hearing from the Minister at the end of today’s debate as to how the Government intend to reflect Members’ concerns in their bilateral relations and foreign policy and in the actions they take in the many multinational agencies and forums in which they participate and have an influence.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on securing this timely debate and bringing it before the House. I also thank Members for their tolerance, in this debate about tolerance, for my earlier interventions. I had not intended to speak, but I will, if I may, contribute a little.
	On the United Nations, I completely agree that article 18 needs far more definition of what fundamental human rights and freedom of speech mean, and far more elaboration of where freedom of religion sits within freedom of speech and fundamental human rights. Much is done by the UN around the world on freedom of speech, but greater focus is needed on freedom of religion. Although Members have highlighted persecution of people of all faiths, we are undoubtedly seeing unprecedented persecution against the Christian church. That can include Catholics, Protestants, evangelicals within the Protestant tradition and others as well.
	I mentioned the Commonwealth earlier, and I will do so again, because I believe that it should be doing far more to ensure that its members abide by its founding and fundamental principles: both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In particular, I think of Pakistan. The Department for International Development’s aid budget to Pakistan has increased significantly, and I support that. However, the Government should be pushing more than they already are—although they are pushing more than the previous Government—on ensuring that people are able to express their faith in the way that they see fit.

Rehman Chishti: On Pakistan, does my hon. Friend agree that in politics, as in life, there is always a window of opportunity when one can push for change? In Pakistan at the moment, there is a new Government with a clear majority. Unlike the previous Government, which was a five-party coalition, they can do things. Prime Minister Sharif was a Minister under General Zia when many of these blasphemy laws were introduced. Therefore, with his close links to the clerics, changes can be brought about if the right pressures are applied by the international community.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend is probably the most knowledgeable on Pakistan in this House, so I defer to his wisdom. However, I am talking about leveraging—not having conditional DFID aid—UK taxpayers’ money so that we maximise the return on that money through aid and development. That can include, for example, ensuring that those people who want to have no faith or who want to convert from a particular faith—let us say from Islam to Christianity—can do so without fear of persecution. As my hon. Friend will know, that persecution can range from denial of access to public services, health care and education through to death, rape and torture. That is going on today in different parts of the world as we speak, and it is completely unacceptable.
	I think also of India, another member of the Commonwealth. I joined Members from across the House last year in writing to the Indian Government about the changes to the laws in Orissa. Other states are changing their laws to say that people cannot choose which god, gods or faith they follow. Again, the Commonwealth must consider that issue.
	Nigeria is another Commonwealth member and, of course, UK aid funding to it has increased considerably. Again, I support that. A lot of the budget is going to counter terrorism and I support that, too, but far more of the money ought to be going into interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between communities. The President, Goodluck Jonathan, needs to do far more to protect both the Muslim and Christian populations. At the
	moment, the status quo is not acceptable; let us hope that those young girls will soon be released. I support what the British Government are doing in Nigeria, but the Nigerian Government need to do far more to crack down on corruption so that British taxpayers’ money goes into interfaith dialogue and reducing religious tensions in that community.

Rehman Chishti: On interfaith dialogue, does my hon. Friend agree that when Islam or other faiths are misapplied, the Muslim community or the communities involved must ensure that they address that? An 18-year-old named Mr Deghayes went to Syria and fought as a terrorist, but he was described as a martyr by his father. There is no way he can be described as a martyr. He took part in a civil war, he was a terrorist and it is wrong for his father to say that. The wider Muslim community say, as I do, that he is a terrorist. When the faith is misapplied, those in the wider community must address that and that can only be good for interfaith dialogue.

Mark Pritchard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The misapplication of faith around the world is a problem. The problem is not true religion, but false religion and the misinterpretation of faith. The majority of people of true faith want to make the world a better place.
	On the issue of speaking out, I think it would be helpful to those of different faiths around the world to hear a little more from people in this country of differing faiths who stand up for freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the countries in which people of different faiths are being persecuted. We should speak out and say that we think they should enjoy the same freedoms as we do in the United Kingdom. Specifically—let me make this clear in terms—some of the Muslim leaders in this country should speak up from the cities of the United Kingdom for freedom of religion and speech in places such as Pakistan and India.
	On Iran, many Members will know the history of Persia better than I do, but it was, of course, King Cyrus who inspired the charter on fundamental rights, with the so-called Cyrus cylinder. If one goes to the United Nations building in New York, one can see a copy of it there on the wall. Interestingly, that king helped the Jews to return and paid for the building of the temple. On the persecution of the Christians, the one or two remaining people of the Jewish tradition, and the Baha’i in Iran, I would say to the leadership that Persia has a proud tradition of standing up for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and of co-existing with people of other faiths.
	My view is that if leaders of countries, religious leaders and the people are self-confident in their faith and in their god and/or gods, they do not need to go around persecuting people. They do not need to live in insecurity if they are secure in their own faith and their own tradition. Those who would persecute using the leverage of leadership and seniority are doing their own faith and tradition a disservice by suggesting that there is an insecurity inherent within it.
	I want also to mention Egypt. I had the privilege some years ago of visiting Egypt four or five times—for the benefit of those in the Lobby, I hasten to add that I did so privately and funded out of my own purse, or rather wallet. The Coptic tradition has had a huge
	and positive impact on the culture of Egypt. I know that the Minister knows the country well. I know the Government are doing a huge amount to ensure that the new constitution in Egypt is not only implemented, but implemented in spirit. It is important that the buildings and even more so the people of the Coptic Church are given full protection in Egypt.
	With reference to China and in particular the Xinjiang region and Uighur Muslims, it is right that those Muslims should be able to practise their religion without fear of persecution, but it is also in the Chinese national interest and the Chinese national security interest not to put in place measures that help breed the radicalisation of young people in that part of China. If the Chinese Government want to sow persecution, they may in the future reap a radicalised element within their own borders and their own community. I hope they will look again at their policy on Uighur Muslims and the Xinjiang region and other parts of China.
	I pay tribute to Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other faith groups that do so much to promote religious tolerance, as well as to those churches in my constituency—in the diocese of Hereford, my home diocese some years ago, the diocese of Lichfield, and others within the Catholic faith and other parts of the Protestant Church.
	This has been a timely debate. We need to keep a watching brief on these issues. As more Members visit Burma—I know that members of the International Development Committee recently visited—I hope they will speak out for religious freedom.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) on bringing this matter to the Floor of the House for consideration. It is a privilege and a pleasure to make a contribution. I support the motion as a whole, but I will focus my remarks on the persecuted Church throughout the world. I pay tribute to the organisations Open Doors, Barnardo’s, Christian Solidarity and Release International as four bodies that do great work on behalf of the Christian Church.
	My heart was broken recently listening to a lady from North Korea. My right hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) were at the same event, which was an opportunity to hear the story of a person who was a Christian in North Korea and who had escaped to South Korea. Her story was horrendous. A few days later I was telling my parliamentary aide about it, but I could not bring myself to retell the whole story of what happened to that lady. It hit my parliamentary aide hard as well. Those are our Christian brothers and Christian sisters, on whose behalf, I believe, we in this House have a responsibility to work. In our own parts of the country, people complain about what version of scripture is to be read, how hard the pews are, or which hymn is sung too often, yet in North Korea people are tortured and their lives are threatened because they happen to be Christians living and dying for their faith. They treasure single pages of scripture and holding fast to the truths contained therein. These are the issues that we bring to the attention of the House today.
	What can the House do to help the families of the 150 people in Nigeria who Release International says were killed in attacks on three Christian villages on 14 March this year? What help can the House offer Martha from Torkula village, who watched her three adult sons being slaughtered and chopped up with machetes and who now has to take care of three daughters-in-law and their children in her old age? What comfort can this House give to people whose pastor’s wife and three children were burned alive along with 200 homes and churches in raids on other villages in Nigeria? What can we do for the children who have been ripped from their homes? This issue has been raised by other Members. On Monday 14 April, at around 10 pm, suspected members of Boko Haram swooped into Chibok, northern Nigeria, in seven Toyota pick-ups. Some of the attackers set government and other buildings ablaze, but others went to the senior secondary school, where they overpowered the security guards before herding 230 female students, all between the ages of 16 and 20, into trucks. That is an absolute disgrace.

Nigel Dodds: I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the impact of this event. A number of constituents have been in touch with me to express utter horror and outrage, and to raise the seeming failure of the authorities to take what happened seriously enough. If anything comes out of this debate, it should be that a very clear message is sent by Parliament that we expect the Nigerian Government to do more to get these children back.

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. That is exactly the message coming from my constituents. They are asking me, “What are the Nigerian Government doing?” The mothers and fathers of the children concerned are asking the same question in Nigeria. Either there is disbelief on the Nigerian Government’s part, or they just do not know what is going on.
	The attackers drove the girls into the nearby Sambisa forest. Fortunately, some 40 girls escaped. Open Doors says:
	“Almost every house has a child in this school…Cries of parents could be heard all over the town…Christians in Chibok spoke to Open Doors following the abduction. ‘I am not sure of what our daughters are passing through,’ said Elder Emma, a church leader in the town. ‘Please help us to pray and seek the face of the Lord on this situation and that the good Lord will reunite us with our beloved children.’”
	Those are the issues for those parents and children in Nigeria. Perhaps the Minister can say whether he has had any discussion with the Nigerian authorities on this subject, because it is important to have such discussions.
	I tabled an early-day motion today to highlight the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. I urge Members who have not seen it to sign it today and show their support. We have a duty to stand up for those throughout the world who are dying for their faith. We have a duty in this House to help the widows and orphans, and to do the right thing in whatever way we can.

Julian Lewis: Given that we are supplying so much aid to Nigeria, does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps we might incentivise its Government a little bit by suggesting that the aid will not be forthcoming in such great quantity unless that Government take prompt action in this terrible situation?

Jim Shannon: I could not have put it better. That is exactly how I feel, and how many of us feel in the House. We want action from the Nigerian Government instead of this hands-off approach. We want those 230 children sent back to their parents, in the same condition and health that they were in when they were kidnapped. If the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is a way of ensuring that, then let us do it. The secretary of the Kaduna state chapter of the Christian Association of Nigeria, Rev. Sunday Ibrahim, has said:
	“The killing is barbaric and unjustifiable...We…condemn in strong terms these serial killings. As Christians we are not preaching violence, but urging the government and security agencies to rise up and face the reality of things.”
	Can we do anything different in this place, having read of the happenings in Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Kenya, Iran and China?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: My hon. Friend may be aware of a report prepared by the all-party parliamentary group, Christians in Parliament, on persecution in Iran. I should like to highlight the case of Pastor Farshid Fathi, who is in prison in Tehran and was recently the subject of a violent attack in which his foot was crushed. We hope to travel to Tehran to raise the case directly with the Iranian Government. That is the kind of action that we need to take.

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. I am aware of that case, because just yesterday in the House, I met some of the people organising the trip to Iran to highlight the case; my hon. Friend is part of that deputation. Those are the sorts of things we need to do. I know that the Government have given a commitment, and Baroness Warsi has been very effective in highlighting the situation of Christians across the world, but what I would like to hear from the Minister today is that every opportunity is taken—I am sure that it is—to highlight the persecution of Christians across the world. The deputation’s visit to Iran is a good opportunity to highlight what is happening there. Pastor Farshid Fathi is just one of many people in prison and many families are under severe pressure. Those of us who received this month’s magazine from Release International will note that the prayer list and cases outlined refer specifically to Iran, and we need to keep an eye on them.
	Can we do anything differently in this place? Can we shake our heads while there is a possibility that we can use our influence, as one of the most respected countries in the world, to make a difference? The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelands holds a privileged position in the world. We have opportunities to interact with many Governments and to suggest, coax and persuade them to help. Other Members outlined the issues in Egypt, Syria and South Sudan, and we pray every day for them and for our Christian brothers and sisters, who are under tremendous pressure because of their beliefs. How can we even begin to understand the issues facing those who could be killed for being a Christian? We are privileged in this country and have a job to do across the world.
	In conclusion, the stories highlight that there are evil people in this world who are intent on seeing that evil spread. I have said it before in the House and it bears repeating—all Members will know this statement—that evil triumphs when good people do nothing. We must
	not sit in the greatest seat of democracy and do nothing. I sincerely plead with the Minister—I know that I will get a positive response—to use our influence, our diplomats, aid and support to help stop this taking place. Let the Nigerian Government know that there must be changes. Support those who cannot speak for themselves. Let us be known throughout the world as good people who stood against evil and helped to stop it triumphing. On behalf of the persecuted Church throughout the world, let us do whatever we possibly can, with courage and conviction.

Jeremy Lefroy: It is a great honour to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the most powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place. I also thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for initiating the debate.
	Alongside extreme poverty, growing income inequality and climate change, I rate extremism in relation to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as one of the four most powerful threats to the world in the 21st century. In fact, it could be said that, in some places, extremism is the cause of one or two of the other threats. In the UK, as many speakers have said, we have a responsibility. We can see in our history the suffering caused by religious strife and persecution, as well as the benefits that freedom of speech and of religion can bring. I welcome the Foreign and Commonwealth Office making the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief a key priority. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to Baroness Warsi, to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), to the Minister and to Foreign Office staff for beginning to implement that critical priority.
	The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to change one’s religion, which is important, and the freedom to manifest it in teaching, practice, worship and observance, all of which are in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, are not options. They are a fundamental requirement of belonging to the family of nations. The universal declaration of human rights was put together following the horrors of the second world war. It is not some kind of optional extra. It is a foundation stone of a civilised and just world. Any state that does not uphold it or pretends to do so must be challenged and challenged again by the international community.
	Pakistan has been referred to several times in the debate, and rightly so, but we should also refer to other countries. There is a measure of freedom of religion in Pakistan, because we do see churches and worshippers there, but there are countries where we do not see a single church or a single building of a faith other than the authorised one. We do not hear so much about those countries—Saudi Arabia, for example—simply because there is no freedom at all. Sometimes a little bit of freedom results in persecution, because there is a measure of a presence of one particular faith. We should bear that in mind as we highlight countries in this debate.
	We should challenge countries not only on the basis of their people’s fundamental human rights, but because in the long term persecution will severely damage the
	countries themselves. In order to succeed in today’s world, countries need people who are encouraged to innovate, challenge, inquire and take risks. If they expect that but say that people must believe in God, or cannot believe in God, or can only follow a certain lifestyle, making them into criminals if they do not conform, they should not be surprised if those people take their talents elsewhere, if they have not already imprisoned or executed them.
	Take my family origins as an example. I come from a Huguenot background. We were expelled from France more than 400 years ago because of our Protestant faith. Yet the Huguenots brought to Britain the seeds of the industrial revolution, which changed the face of this country for ever—the Courtauld family was perhaps the most prominent—and France lost several decades of economic development as a result. It would be simplistic to correlate the lack of human rights, including freedom of religion, with economic progress. The presence of abundant natural resources can give Governments the ability to buy such progress, but that approach is unsustainable in the long term. The best way to build a state that can stand the test of time is to build one that enables all its people to flourish, that includes and does not exclude, and that celebrates its diversity, rather than being afraid of it.
	Of course, there is another side. Freedom of religion and belief also involves exercising that freedom, as with any freedom, with great responsibility. Incitement to violence or any other crime can never be excused by being covered in the cloak of religion. I reiterate the point my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin made about the importance of people of all faiths in this country standing up for such freedoms in countries from which their families might have originally come.

Rehman Chishti: I visited Saudi Arabia two years ago with the all-party group. As someone from a Muslim faith, I made it quite clear to its parliamentary Shura Council that it should allow people from the Christian community to build churches there, just as people from the Muslim community who come here from other countries can build mosques. It is only fair that people of other faiths in Saudi Arabia should be able to build their places of worship.

Jeremy Lefroy: My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement, and I absolutely agree.
	As has already been pointed out, there is a global trend of increasing persecution of people of all religions and none. I want to make a few remarks about Tanzania, whose all-party group I chair. I also had the privilege of living there for 11 years. Tanzania has a secular constitution and has been noted for its religious freedom since independence in 1961. It has been a model of harmony, instituted by its first President, Mwalimu Julius Nyerere. Yet recently we have seen a disturbing rise in the incidence of religious attacks, particularly on Christians. That reflects the rise in extremist Islamist action in both the Sahel and further south in sub-Saharan Africa. We need to support Tanzania and other countries, such as Kenya, and indeed Nigeria, in their work to maintain freedom, peace and stability against all those who wish to destroy it.
	In my constituency we have an organisation called the Dalit Freedom Network. We must also not forget those peoples who find their rights at risk because of the families and societies into which they were born. I commend all those who, sometimes at the cost of their freedom or their life, stand up for groups around the world who are persecuted not just because of their faith or their political views but simply because of who they were born to.
	Queen Elizabeth I is believed to have said that she did not wish to make windows into men’s souls. A country that follows that maxim—that works for and protects all its people, whatever their beliefs, background or lifestyle—rather than waging war on minorities is much more likely to flourish than one that does not.

Ian Lucas: It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who made an excellent speech in which he referred to the maxim of Queen Elizabeth I about windows and souls and that is powerful to this day.
	We owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) for bringing us here today to participate in this very powerful debate, which has been wide ranging because this is a worldwide issue. It is important that we express the very strong views that are coming into my constituency office and, as we have heard, into constituency offices right across the country about the importance of freedom of religion, conscience and speech.
	I would like to raise one specific issue with the Minister and make one request. We have heard a number of references to the abductions of the children in Chibok in Nigeria. I have sensed a strong feeling across the House that we would like to have more information on this issue and the opportunity of meeting the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who is Minister for Africa, to hear about precisely what is happening and about what discussions are taking place between him and the Nigerian authorities to try to assist in taking it forward. This is a matter of profound concern. I would be grateful if the Minister took that request back to the Foreign Office and we could have an urgent meeting about it.
	The right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) made a fascinating speech to which I listened very closely, particularly when he talked about his perception of the universal declaration on human rights and the optimism that existed after the second world war. That is something that we have too little of in our political thought nowadays. At a dreadful time—a period of reconstruction—our predecessors made a profound commitment. Many of the countries we have mentioned, including Saudi Arabia and China, committed to the universal declaration on human rights. We need to remind them that they did so voluntarily and that progress can be made.
	Pessimism sometimes prevails on this issue, but we have also heard some references to the Arab uprising—the Arab spring—and the middle east, which is my particular focus. I want to share with the House a positive story about the middle east. It relates to Tunisia, where the Arab spring started when a man called Mohamed Bouazizi burnt himself to death. That led to the deposing of the
	then president, Ben Ali, and the beginnings of the Arab spring. The past three years in Tunisia have been difficult. Prime ministers have come and gone, Presidents have moved on, and individuals and parliamentarians have been killed because of the political views they have expressed. However, I am pleased to report to the House that the leader of our sister party, Mustapha Ben Jafar, whom I was pleased to meet recently, has been able to put together a constitution that is broadly welcomed on a cross-party basis and has been approved by parliamentarians and parties right across the piece. It is an Islamic country, but the constitution respects freedom of conscience and religion and that has been achieved against a very difficult backcloth at a very difficult time.
	I pay tribute to the United Kingdom Government for the support they have given to the Tunisian Government. I have visited the embassy there, so I know that a great deal of work has been put in and that it has been a very difficult process. The investment in the Arab Partnership and the work undertaken by the Foreign Office and the Government have been very positive indeed. Although we have heard some dreadful accounts of what is happening across the world, that positive picture shows that progress can be made. We need to retain such resilience—that much underrated political quality—and ensure that we carry it forward. We should remember that our revolution between 1649 and 1660 took 11 years and that it went backwards and forwards and then back again. These things take time.

Jim Shannon: Although the Tunisian constitution enables people to practise Christianity, there are examples of persecution whereby some people in positions of power have been unwilling to let that happen. Will the shadow Minister use his influence with his contacts there to ensure that that point is addressed?

Ian Lucas: Absolutely. A written constitution is a wonderful thing, but applying it and embedding its principles are even more important. I will certainly do what the hon. Gentleman asks.
	We have heard some excellent contributions, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who discussed the Ahmadiyya Muslims, about whom I learned a great deal today.
	I have seen the film, “Coma”, starring Geneviève Bujold. We need to hear more about the dreadful, horrific picture of North Korea described by the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). The name of that country recurred throughout the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made, as ever, a passionate contribution. We heard so much about the current situation in the Central African Republic, which is of major concern.
	The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) also told us about North Korea, and her commitment on the issues under discussion is widely known. I was moved to hear of the communication she received from South Korea: we are, indeed, listened to.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) made an excellent speech about human rights and how this is a rights issue. That takes us back to the central importance of the universal declaration of human rights in 1948. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made an important point
	about how it is not negotiable. It must run through this country’s entire political policy, if we are to maintain our position in the world. We need, therefore, to be consistent in our application of it and to have some tough conversations with friends as well as opponents. Such difficult things sometimes need to be considered.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) told us of concerns north of the border and the contribution of the Church of Scotland, which, like Churches across the United Kingdom, is very concerned about the issues. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is not in his place, also has a long-standing interest in the matter and he paid tribute, as we all should, to Open Doors, which provides such important information.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to Nigeria. I hope we can work together to try to resolve the dreadful situation there, which must be so bad for the parents of those children who are missing.
	The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) drew the Back-Bench contributions to a close with his deep knowledge of Tanzania. It is always interesting to hear about his Huguenot background. Perhaps it is down to the Huguenots that we invented the industrial revolution and the French did not, which is a very good thing.
	For all such reasons, this debate has been very valuable. It is wonderful that there has not been much disagreement across the House. However, a great range of views has been expressed, and we need to realise that we are not divided on these issues. I am afraid that the hard conversations are for Governments. We can debate the issues in this Chamber, but those difficult conversations take place between one Government and another, when a Government do not live up to the standards that we want to see.
	I have already paid tribute to the UK Government’s excellent work in Tunisia. There is a very difficult situation in Egypt, where a great deal of work has also been carried out. It will be very good if the same principles can be applied in Egypt that were applied in Tunisia. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the steps that will be taken to carry forward the principles of Government policy with which so many of us agree.

Hugo Swire: I thank right hon. and hon. Members for securing this timely debate on freedom of thought, conscience and religion around the world, and for their valuable and very non-partisan speeches in the Chamber this afternoon. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who was instrumental in obtaining the debate.
	Allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to restate that protecting freedom of religion or belief is a priority for this Government. The right to have a faith, to manifest it alone or in company with others, to change religion, to live without any religion at all or to follow a secular or humanistic belief are of course fundamental principles.
	We back up our commitment to those principles in words and deeds. We constantly raise religious pluralism and tolerance in our discussions with other Governments. I was therefore intrigued by the paradox that my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) was set to write about at school, and I agree that the
	idea that we should tolerate intolerance is intolerable. We devote Foreign and Commonwealth Office resources to overseas programmes designed to overcome prejudice, discrimination and sectarianism. We work in multilateral forums to ensure that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief is afforded the international legal protection that it deserves, and to bring forward the day when it will no longer be considered an orphaned right.
	Alarmingly, there are now many examples of faith groups feeling that they are persecuted, from the treatment of Christians in North Korea, about which I will say more in a minute, to the blasphemy laws in Pakistan.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Minister give way?

Hugo Swire: Let me make some progress, please.
	The examples extend from the restrictions on the Rohingya Muslims in Burma to reports of raids on house churches in China, from the persecution of both Christians and Jews across the middle east to the plight of the Baha’i in Iran and Shias in Bahrain. Indeed, official restrictions on religion are at their highest for six years. That is why we actively intend to do more, not least as a result of the recommendations of the all-party group on international religious freedom and of the Government’s expert advisory group on freedom of religion or belief, which is chaired by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has responsibilities for those matters in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Rehman Chishti: The Minister said that the Government work with other Governments to address these issues. I raised the issue of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. I said that there is a need for urgent reform of those laws, which are often used to persecute the Christian community and other minority communities in Pakistan. The Prime Minister agreed to raise such points with Prime Minister Sharif when he visited London. Prime Minister Sharif visited London yesterday, so will the Minister clarify whether those points were raised with him and what his response was?

Hugo Swire: My hon. Friend has pre-empted me. During Nawaz Sharif’s visit earlier this week, he and the Prime Minister discussed the recent blasphemy laws cases in Pakistan and the prospects for reforming those laws.
	As was the intention of the hon. Members who secured it, this debate has quite rightly not focused exclusively on one country, region or, indeed, faith. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said, the Pew Research Centre has found that Christians are now the most persecuted faith group in the world. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister noted that during his Easter reception, and hon. Members have highlighted it again today. Christians, like the followers of any other faith or those of no faith, are entitled to protection. We must do more to raise the awareness of their plight.
	My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi gave a speech in Washington last November in which she spoke of a “global crisis” that is fuelled by a militant sectarianism that is forcibly removing minority Christian
	populations from areas where they have co-existed peacefully with the majority for generations. That is intolerable and we will continue to stand up against such persecution wherever and whenever it occurs. However, Christians seldom stand alone. Often, it is the Judaeo-Christian bloc, with its common heritage, that is threatened.
	The fundamental right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is constantly threatened by sectarianism and by religious and ethnic division. We speak up for those facing persecution not because of their religion but regardless of their religion or belief, to defend the right, which should be undeniable, to practise the region or belief of one’s choice or, as I have said before, to follow no religion at all. To do that, we are working with civil society to build a united front to combat what can be seen as a rising tide of religious persecution and working to build acceptance across all faiths that, just as they are entitled to their beliefs, so others are entitled to theirs. Christians defending Christians, Jews defending Jews and Muslims defending Muslims is not enough.
	Time and again, the voices of those who are persecuted for their faith call on us not to take pity on their plight but to strengthen the rule of law and defend human rights for all. More open and inclusive societies are the best route towards regional stability and security, and the protection of freedom of religion or belief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said so eloquently. In the middle east and north Africa, for example, the UK is supporting long-term political and economic reform through the work of the Arab Partnership initiative by strengthening crucial institutions such as the judiciary, a free press and civil society across the region.
	There are reasons to be optimistic. I do not seek to claim that this is a direct result of our intervention, but I was tremendously heartened by the image during the violent street protests in Egypt three years ago of Christians holding hands to protect Muslims at prayer in the streets, of Muslims guarding Coptic churches while Christians prayed, and of Christians, on a Friday, reciprocating outside mosques.
	Nevertheless, it is clear that a stronger political will is needed to ensure that there is universal implementation of United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 16/18, which calls on member states
	“to foster religious freedom and pluralism, to ensure religious minorities are properly represented, and to consider adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief.”
	The United Kingdom has been taking the lead on that. During the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week last September, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, who has a particular interest in this issue given her dual role as Foreign Office Minister and Minister for faith, convened a meeting of international leaders to generate practical steps to promote freedom of religion or belief and to fight religious intolerance within our societies.
	We are sharing some of our best practice with other countries and funding practical projects in a range of countries to reduce intra-community tensions, improve dialogue and promote minority rights. In Iraq, for example, we are funding a series of grass-roots meetings led by Canon Andrew White—the so-called vicar of Baghdad—to bring together people from different faiths to combat violence. In Syria, we have given more than
	£500,000 to promote dialogue and reduce tensions between the Sunni, Alawite, Christian, Druze, Armenian and Kurdish communities. We have been giving Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomats a better understanding of the role of faith in society and foreign policy. That includes training them to spot violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief and to take action when abuses occur.

Julian Lewis: The Minister has covered many of the abuses that have been mentioned, but he has not made reference to China and the harvesting of organs, to which I referred. I note from the reading that I have done for this debate that whereas there have been pronouncements on the subject by the United Nations, the United States and even the European Parliament, I have not come across anything much from the British Government. I wonder what their attitude to the subject is.

Hugo Swire: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I hope to get to that in the time left.
	We know that we do not have all the answers, and the Government alone cannot be the solution. The Foreign Office’s whole ministerial team, and particularly my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, are always keen to hear views from parliamentarians and civil society groups on what more we might do or what we might do differently. In particular, we welcome the increased focus on these fundamental rights by parliamentarians, including members of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief. I know, for example, that the all-party group recommended that we establish a new expert advisory group, which we did. We are looking to implement other recommendations, including by extending the funding period for our programme of activity and exploring the steps towards an international convention on freedom of religion or belief, although careful thought will have to be given to how that would be negotiated.
	Hon. Members have raised a number of specific issues. The hon. Member for Belfast East, who secured the debate, spoke about Open Doors, to which we pay tribute for its work and its valuable world watch list, which describes the worst countries for Christians. We agree that the UN Human Rights Council could do more on the right to freedom of religion or belief, which is why, with our EU partners, we table a resolution on the topic every six months. We consistently aim to strengthen the text and ensure that individual UN member states implement those resolutions in their own countries.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and others raised the issue of freedom of religion in Pakistan. It is vital that Pakistan guarantee the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their faith or ethnicity. We regularly raise the issue of religious freedom with the authorities in Pakistan at a senior level, including on the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Pakistan in July 2013 and my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi’s visit in September 2013. I answered the question earlier about the Prime Minister’s meeting in the past few days.
	My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) raised the issue of Falun Gong. We continue to have serious concerns about reports of torture and mistreatment of detainees in China. We are aware that organs removed from executed prisoners are used for human transplantation purposes in China, and that
	Chinese law requires that prisoners give prior consent that their organs be used in that way. Criminal justice reform and the rule of law, including torture prevention and the treatment of detainees, has been a consistent focus of our human rights engagement with the Chinese authorities both at ministerial level and through project work on the ground. We welcome steps taken by the Chinese Government in recent years to improve the regulation of organ transplantation, and we will continue to encourage China to make further progress in that respect, including by engaging to share best practice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke with some feeling about the Baha’i community. The Baha’i faith in Iran is subject to mounting persecution, as he is aware, and we are concerned by state efforts to identify, monitor and arbitrarily detain Baha’is. According to the Baha’i International Community, more than 100 Baha’is remain in detention in Iran. We have consistently and repeatedly expressed concern at the ongoing incarceration, and at the shocking sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders in Iran to 20 years’ imprisonment each on charges of espionage, propaganda against the regime, collusion and collaboration for the purposes of endangering national security, and spreading corruption on earth. We have made it clear in public statements that it is appalling that Iran reinstated that original sentence after acquitting the leaders of several of their charges.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and other Members raised the issue of the Ahmadis. We fully share her concern about the persecution of the Ahmadis and engage with the Pakistani Government about it at a senior level. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi praised the Ahmadis’ strong contribution to British society at their conference of world religions in February.
	A number of Members mentioned Egypt, which continues to dominate the news. Sectarian violence increased under President Morsi and has continued since. Amnesty reports that 200 Christian-owned properties have been attacked and 43 churches burned down or damaged since July 2013. In September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement in Parliament condemning the violence against Christian churches. Article 64 of the 2014 constitution states that freedom of belief is absolute, but the key test will be how the constitution is implemented, as many articles require additional legislation.
	We are also concerned by the ongoing crackdown in Iran on religious minorities, which a number of Members mentioned, including the house church movement among Iranian Christians. The call by the supreme leader in October 2011 to prevent the spread of Christianity in Iran reveals a disturbing trend to stop freedom of religion. I call on Iran to cease harassment of religious minorities, and to fulfil its international and domestic obligations to allow freedom of religion to all Iranians. We are concerned for the welfare of the imprisoned pastors, Saeed Abedini, Farshid Fathi and Behnam Irani, whom we believe have no case to answer. We call on Iran to release them.
	The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) asked about the horrific story of the abduction of 180 schoolgirls in northern Nigeria. The whole House will want to join in the utter condemnation of those responsible for the abduction and what is a hideous and despicable crime.
	In his statement on 16 April, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary offered our assistance and help to the Nigerians to ensure that the children can be returned to their families safely. He also spoke to Nigerian Foreign Minister Wali on 18 April. We are talking to the Nigerian authorities about how best to assist in their efforts to secure the girls’ release and bring those responsible to justice. The hon. Member for Wrexham asked for a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who has responsibility for Africa, and I am sure he would be happy to brief him if we had anything significant to add.

Ian Lucas: It is not just me. There is concern across the House, and more broadly a number of people from outside the Chamber have expressed concerns about this issue. It would be good if the meeting was for Members generally.

Hugo Swire: Indeed. As I said, all Members of the House share our view of this despicable event, and we will attempt to keep the House updated. Getting information about what has happened and the current state of play is proving rather difficult.

Jim Shannon: I indicated in my contribution, as did others, that there seems to be an unwillingness in the Nigerian Government security forces to move on this matter. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made a suggestion that would gain some support in the Chamber, which was that if there is such an unwillingness, perhaps we should look at other ways of persuading the Nigerian Government to act. That is the direction or focus that some of us in this House—including me—might be willing to consider.

Hugo Swire: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Our first concern must be for the abducted schoolgirls, and we will do nothing that would in any way prevent their return or endanger their lives further. At this stage we need to encourage, rather than talk about conditions and sanctions and so forth. We will, of course, try to keep the House as updated as possible.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about North Korea. She and I have discussed that country on a number of occasions, and I continue to pay tribute to her hard work. What she says is absolutely right. I have said it in this House and I will say it again: once the curtain is lifted on what has gone on over the past decade plus in the DPRK, we shall see that the systemic and systematic human rights abuses are on a level not exceeded anywhere in the contemporary world. She spoke extraordinarily movingly, and we will do everything we can to bring to bear what pressure we can on the DPRK. Of course, the countries that can really do that are those that are part of the six-party talks, which we encourage to reassemble at the earliest opportunity.

Fiona Bruce: May I express my appreciation to the Minister for the interest he has taken in the concerns of the North Korea all-party group? We all welcomed the report by Mr Justice Kirby, but we must ensure that it
	does not just lie there but is acted on. Will the UK Government urge the UN Security Council to take action on that report, perhaps by referral to the International Criminal Court or some other appropriate body, so that we can see the difference made as a result?

Hugo Swire: First, as my hon. Friend knows, I met Mr Justice Kirby when he was in London, and I pay tribute to his work and that of his inquiry team. Secondly, I perceive a mood change at the UN and elsewhere that finally something has to be done to address what is going on in the DPRK.
	There will be no let-up in the Government’s work to promote and protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion around the world. The issue is serious, and is only getting worse. We remain committed to tackling it using all the resources at our disposal, whether through our ongoing bilateral diplomatic engagement, our activity at the international institutional level or our programme funding. We will continue to press partners, allies and others to deliver real change.
	The freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental human right that all people should enjoy. We are convinced that societies that aspire to guarantee this freedom are stronger, fairer and more confident. Perhaps more importantly, it is a litmus test for other human rights and can be a catalyst towards securing other fundamental freedoms. I assure the House that we will continue to use our diplomatic network to promote this freedom around the world and to combat prejudice, discrimination and violence in the name of religion or belief wherever and whenever they occur.

Naomi Long: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for the thoughtful and informed contributions that they have made today, which have highlighted the scale and scope of the issue before us. I especially thank those who co-sponsored the application to the Backbench Business Committee and the Committee itself for facilitating this important debate this afternoon.
	With the right to freedom of religion or belief goes the important right to live one’s life free of religion if one so chooses. That issue is often overlooked, but I remind the House of the persecution of atheists in countries such as Indonesia. Rights are not a fixed quantity: their extension to others does not diminish our own. On the contrary, the extension of rights strengthens and secures access to them for each of us. As many hon. Members have reflected, the challenge of freedom of religion and belief is often accompanied by a challenge to other civil liberties and by failing, corrupt and unstable states. It is therefore not only morally and ethically right that we should defend religious liberty, but it is in our national interest to do so.
	I thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their responses to the debate. I am very encouraged that the Minister has read the report by the all-party group and the recommendations, which I commend to him and his colleagues as a means of practical action on this matter. Many Members mentioned that the debate was timely and talked of recent developments in this area. Sadly, the same could be said whenever this debate was scheduled because the abuse of freedom of thought,
	conscience and belief is relentless. I encourage hon. Members to ensure that those of us who enjoy the freedom to speak do so relentlessly in this House and elsewhere on behalf of those whose rights are denied.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

THAMES VALLEY, BERKSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anne Milton.)

Alok Sharma: Thames Valley, Berkshire is a geographic area that covers all eight parliamentary constituencies in the county of Berkshire, and also the region covered by our local enterprise partnership. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) are in their places to participate in the debate. Others, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) who is a huge supporter of local business and enterprise, would have liked to have attended this debate but cannot do so due to other commitments.
	Outside London, Thames Valley, Berkshire is the economic powerhouse of the British economy. It is home to 42,000 businesses, including the European and global headquarters of more than 200 Fortune 500 companies such as Microsoft, Oracle, Vodafone, Telefonica, Fujitsu, Mars, Johnson & Johnson and Honda, to name a few. We also have companies from some of the world’s fastest growing economies investing heavily in the region. Chinese telecoms company Huawei moved its European headquarters to Green Park in my constituency last year, bringing hundreds of jobs and many hundreds of millions of pounds worth of inward investment.

Fiona Mactaggart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that critical to inward investment in the Thames valley is our connectedness to Heathrow? Does he agree that we should support the airport and improve its connectivity from the west to reap all the benefits that Heathrow brings for inward investment into the Thames valley?

Alok Sharma: I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I agree with her and I am on the record as supporting Heathrow. We will see what the Airports Commission comes up with. The one thing that would be absolutely detrimental to the local area is any decision by the Airports Commission which in any way downgrades Heathrow. That would be bad for business and bad for Thames Valley, Berkshire.
	The area has the highest share of inward foreign direct investment projects across all LEP areas except London. Foreign-owned firms account for 40% of the sub-region’s total turnover, and approximately one fifth of employment is in foreign-owned businesses. On that metric, the share of Thames Valley, Berkshire’s employment by foreign-owned businesses is about 10% higher than the LEP average across the country. In the most recent UK competitiveness index, Thames Valley, Berkshire came out as the most competitive LEP area in England.
	Thames Valley, Berkshire also leads the way in exporting, something I know the Minister’s Department, and the Government as a whole, have had a real focus on. A survey, carried out a couple of years ago, of UK businesses with 10 or more employees, found that more than 36% of such businesses based in Thames Valley, Berkshire are exporters. This is a real achievement, and one we are all building on.
	I want to put on record my thanks to the Thames Valley, Berkshire local enterprise partnership, UK Trade & Investment and others for sponsoring and supporting the export seminars that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and I have run for small and medium-sized businesses in Berkshire. These have been incredibly well received by the companies that have attended.
	We also have a balanced economy in our sub-region. We are not over-dependent on any one sector. Although the Thames valley is best known for its technology focus, which underpins Britain’s contribution in software, telecoms and pharmaceuticals, we also have significant employment created by financial services, distribution and retail sectors. As a sub-region, Thames Valley, Berkshire works hard, attracts overseas investment, drives exports, creates jobs and generates significant tax revenues for the Exchequer. I do not think I am being immodest on behalf of Thames Valley, Berkshire when I say that if every other region of Britain could match our area’s growth and innovation, the Bank of England would be forecasting significantly higher growth this year for the British economy than the current 3.4%.
	As part of rebalancing the whole of the British economy, both by geography and by sector, the Government have been absolutely right to focus on major growth initiatives, such as the regional growth fund and enterprise zones, in areas of the country that need support. Clearly, the Government’s policies are working. We have seen that in the growth figures for the previous quarter that have just come out.
	I do not want to give the Minister the impression that we in the Thames valley have not benefited from Government investment—on the contrary. As the Prime Minister saw for himself a few days ago, the £895 million Reading station and related rail upgrade work is proceeding at pace and under budget.

Phillip Lee: My hon. Friend represents Reading, to which my constituency is connected directly. Is it not fantastic news that Crossrail is being extended to Reading, a rail line that will give access to Heathrow, as the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has highlighted? The eastern spur to Heathrow, along with Crossrail, points to the real need for the Airports Commission to decide on Heathrow as the hub. I would like to see four runways there, not just three.

Alok Sharma: Having lobbied for Crossrail to come to Reading, I was delighted when that announcement was made a few weeks ago. I agree with my hon. Friend. We want to ensure that we have a strong Heathrow. It is the hub airport in the country and I would like it to continue that way. He raised the issue of whether there should be an extra runway, or an extra two runways. Those are matters for the Airports Commission to ponder and debate internally, but, as I said earlier, I want to ensure that no downgrading of Heathrow results from future decisions, and I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned access to Heathrow. The western rail access to Heathrow link, rail electrification, the M4 smart motorway scheme and the Theale station upgrade are all examples of Government infrastructure
	projects that will benefit my constituents, and constituents throughout Thames Valley, Berkshire. I am sure that other Members can give examples of successful investment projects in their constituencies. The key to the continued success of Thames Valley, Berkshire will be the delivery of all those major projects on time, and—as is currently the position in the case of the Reading station project—under budget.
	My main purpose in initiating the debate at this time—apart, of course, from my wish to draw attention to the obvious merits of Thames Valley, Berkshire as a successful business area in which to invest—was to raise the issue of the allocation of moneys from the 2015-16 local growth fund. As the Minister knows, Thames Valley Berkshire local enterprise partnership has submitted its strategic economic plan to his Department, giving details of key projects that require support from the fund. The total ask is really quite modest, certainly in comparison with what I understand is being requested by other LEP areas. We are talking about approximately £30 million on top of the £14.5 million that has already been committed.
	The LEP’s estimate, which it tells me is conservative—I have not looked at the model myself—is a return of £11 for every pound that is invested, on a net present value basis. The LEP estimates that support from the fund will help it to deliver 10,700 new homes and more than 21,000 new jobs in the area. I know that the Minister, and the Government in general, will welcome that information. The LEP also tells me that the fund’s support will lead to the leveraging of £120 million of private sector investment. For all those reasons, its submission is strongly supported by local authorities, local Members of Parliament and—most important, in my view—local business.
	The vast majority of the LEP bid and pre-committed capital is money for high-priority transport-related projects such as the proposed Green Park railway station in my constituency. The station would be constructed on the Reading-Basingstoke line, at the heart of the Green Park business park, and would provide a major boost for businesses and workers in the area. Other high-priority projects include the South Reading mass transport scheme, the A332 Slough junction improvements, the Kings road link scheme in Newbury, and mass rapid transport schemes in Wokingham and Bracknell.
	There is also a project to establish a one-stop-shop growth hub which would serve as an information and connection gateway for businesses in Thames Valley, Berkshire, and a project led by further education colleges throughout area to refurbish existing buildings in order to create a hub that can be used by students and corporates for early-stage prototyping. That will lead to an improvement in science, technology, engineering and maths skills, which I know the Government are championing.
	I believe that Thames Valley Berkshire LEP has submitted a very credible proposal, so let me end my speech by asking the Minister four questions. First, what is the timetable for decision-making on the allocation of the local growth fund? Secondly, when will LEPs be informed about fund allocations? Thirdly, will the decision on allocations be made primarily on a value-for-money metric? As I said earlier, Thames Valley Berkshire LEP has estimated an 11-times return on investment, and we hope that that will be taken into account in the measurement
	of its bid against those submitted by other LEPs. Finally, will LEPs be required to provide further supporting information before any final decisions are made about on allocation, or have the Department and the Minister sufficient information to be able to complete their analysis?
	Thames Valley, Berkshire is an economic powerhouse, and the Minister can rest assured that any funds allocated to us will be used effectively. I look forward to his response.

Fiona Mactaggart: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Has the hon. Lady sought the permission of the Chair, the Minister and the hon. Gentleman to make a speech?

Fiona Mactaggart: I did write to the hon. Gentleman, yes. I omitted to write to the Chair, for which I am very apologetic.

Eleanor Laing: If the Minister and the hon. Gentleman indicate their assent, the hon. Lady can have a couple of minutes.

Alok Sharma: indicated assent.

Fiona Mactaggart: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry—even after 15 years in this place, one can omit various bits of its rituals.
	I am very glad that the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) has secured this debate, and I share in his celebration of what we are able to achieve in Thames valley, Berkshire. Ours is a story of success in difficult times, a success that has brought inward investment into the UK, and I am glad that we have been able to show how three MPs from different parts of the county share the view that Heathrow is critical to our county’s and the country’s future.
	That raises an issue that I hope the Minister can respond to, or perhaps encourage his colleagues in the Department for Transport to respond to: the proposed smart motorway on the M4. We really welcome the western rail access to Heathrow, which will make an enormous difference. Companies investing in Slough tell me that it is uncertainty about the future of Heathrow that inhibits their ability to persuade their international boards to invest; knowing that Heathrow’s future is secure would mean better international investment.
	I am concerned about the proposed smart motorway because what it means for those living next to the motorway is genuinely unclear. There is a real lack of clarity regarding its impact on people. Early consultation is going on, but frankly, it is a bit foggy. It would be really helpful if the precise impacts on the homes of those living very close to the motorway could be made clearer.
	Secondly, we need to celebrate the work of the private companies that I recently visited—UCB is an example—and which are investing in our pharmaceutical industries. Such investment is really important in growing our economy. We still have not got as far as our competitor economies in recovering from the events of 2007 and 2008, and we urgently need to do so. The Thames valley
	can help us in that regard, and the Minister could create an environment in which businesses in the Thames valley could really do so.

Michael Fallon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) on securing this debate. This is an opportune time to talk about what the Government are doing to support local growth. In the UK economy as a whole, the Thames valley, Berkshire area is an economic powerhouse. It has a gross value added of some £30 billion, approximately 2% of the UK total. It is a place where small businesses are thriving. Business start-up rates are high—the 5,010 new enterprises formed in 2012 now represent 12% of the area’s businesses—and survival rates are higher in the Thames valley than those for England as a whole.
	It is not just about small businesses: major companies also know that this is an efficient, connected place to be doing business. The area has the most advanced sub-regional knowledge economy in the UK outside inner London, and the highest proportion of foreign-owned businesses across all the local enterprise partnership areas. It enjoys a higher employment rate than the south-east and England overall, and the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance is low. So this is a place that is working now, and creating more new opportunities every day. Just because the area is doing well, it does not mean this Government do not want it to do better. That is why the area is benefiting and will benefit from the full range of this Government’s local growth policies: a city deal, the Growing Places fund and, soon I hope, the area’s growth deal, to which my hon. Friend referred.
	The area’s city deal, signed in October 2013, centres around giving Berkshire’s young people the skills they need to access local job opportunities and helping local businesses to get the work force they need to support their growth. Some £2.4 million from the Youth Contract is being invested to boost youth employment, and that will support 4,500 young people over the next three years by providing a single access point to employment and skills opportunities for all 16 to 24-year-olds across the Thames Valley, Berkshire area, tailored to what they need to find a job. In practical terms that means addressing the skills gap and working with businesses to increase the range of opportunities available, and a key part of that is developing better pathways into work through agencies working better and more collaboratively. That will be underpinned by an innovative new mobile web platform—Elevate Me—funded by O2 and developed with young people themselves. On the business support side of the deal, Thames Valley, Berkshire recently secured £1.23 million of business growth fund money to support the development of its business growth hub. The hub will provide support and advice to small and medium-sized enterprises right across the area, providing a one-stop shop of business services to drive growth.
	Overall, the city deal aims to deliver a 50% reduction in youth unemployment within three years. That is already heading in the right direction, with the number of 16 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker’s allowance down from 3,305 in May 2010 to 1,700 now, but of course there is still more to do. Trialling new, innovative approaches to find local solutions to local problems
	such as youth unemployment is exactly what city deals are about. Everybody will feel the benefits, from young people playing their full part in a prosperous economy to businesses looking to expand.
	Let me deal with the transport issue and the Growing Places fund. The area has received £14 million from that fund. The local enterprise partnership has allocated £7.3 million of that to a new SME escalator fund, specifically responding to the concerns of local small businesses about access to finance by investing in SMEs that have varying investment needs and those that have the potential to deliver substantial growth across the area. SMEs are the linchpin of the area’s economy, and this is exactly what the Government want to see: local partners identifying a need and seeking to address it with targeted support.
	The connectivity of the area is vital to growth, and the Government’s investment in transport infrastructure reflects that, too. Public investment of more than £800 million will double passenger capacity at Reading station by 2015—that includes some £425 million of Government funding for station and platform remodelling, as my hon. Friend recognised. There is £375 million of Network Rail funding to deliver track and signalling works, and of course some £4.3 billion has been allocated for electrification of the great western line as far as Newbury, Didcot and Oxford by 2016, and then on to Wales by 2017. That money will also fund the introduction of 100 new electric trains and bi-mode inter-city trains.
	Continued investment in local infrastructure is crucial to the long-term success of Thames Valley, Berkshire. I recall the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) impressing on me the importance of the airport link when I visited the Mars facility in one of my earliest days as a business Minister. I also know that the area has strong views about the importance of Heathrow expansion. I was pleased to see the interim report published in December, which is a significant step forward in the commission’s work in assessing options for meeting the international aviation needs of our country, and we will respond to the report by June. In the meantime, I note what my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady have said, and what has been said earlier about the need for a third runway and, indeed, a fourth runway. I will of course be contributing to that response later in the summer.
	Let me end by looking briefly to the future and the potential of the local growth fund, about which my hon. Friend has asked me some detailed questions. We have committed to giving local enterprise partnerships, including Thames Valley, Berkshire, both the funding and the freedoms that they need to deliver growth, putting power into the hands of those who know what the area really needs. We have already challenged them to set local strategies for spending the £5.3 billion European structural and investment funding between 2014 and 2020. That is a challenge they have already met, and now we are going further, by negotiating a growth deal for 2015-16 with every area in England.
	That deal will give Thames Valley, Berkshire a share of the total £2 billion annual local growth fund to spend on local projects that it has prioritised, such as transport infrastructure and further education capital projects.
	Like others, Thames Valley, Berkshire is also negotiating with Government for the wider freedoms and flexibilities that it needs to encourage growth.
	As far as the specific plan submitted is concerned, Thames Valley, Berkshire submitted its six-year strategic economic plan to the Government in March. That plan places a strong and welcome emphasis on international competitiveness and the need to keep pace with major international competitors. It also highlights, quite rightly, the area’s high-tech sector strengths, referring to the locality as “tech valley”, and the science, technology, engineering and maths skills that are needed to maintain that position. In this context the overarching priority of the LEP is to secure better access for its businesses to talented people and bright ideas, and to use both human and intellectual capital more effectively. The LEP anticipates that its plan will deliver higher economic output, amounting to around £700 million by 2020.
	Those are worthy, well set out and important aims. I cannot predict the outcome of the negotiations that are now under way. As my hon. Friend will know, the process is highly competitive. The fund that is available is approximately three to four times over-subscribed by the 39 local enterprise partnerships. What I can say is that the most successful partnerships—those that will earn a greater share of the local growth fund—are those that will have strong, deliverable strategic economic plans that are evidenced by strong partnership working, robust arrangements for accountability, and effective collaboration across local enterprise partnership geography.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West quite reasonably asked me four specific questions, so let me now try to answer them. He asked about the timetable. Following negotiations, we hope to get every local enterprise partnership in the best possible position for the deal. The final decision will then be taken by Ministers and the partnerships will be informed about the allocation. I expect that we will be in a position to make those announcements in early July. That deals with his two questions on the timetable.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the decisions will be made on a value-for-money metric. The allocations will be made on an assessment of each strategic economic plan and based overall on the criteria we have published in our growth deal guidance. Those criteria include value for money but they also include the ambition and rationale of the plan and the deliverability and degree of risk that lie behind it. Value for money is certainly one of the key criteria but it is not the only criterion on which the plans will be judged.
	Finally, he asked me whether local enterprise partnerships will be required to provide further information before the final decision. We are seeking clarification from a number of the local enterprise partnerships as part of the negotiating process and I do not think that my hon. Friend should read anything sinister or benevolent into that. This is a negotiation. It is a deal between the Government and the local enterprise partnerships and there are a number of aspects on which we are requiring further information from individual local enterprise partnerships. As I have said, the growth deal for Thames Valley, Berkshire will be announced before the summer recess and the focus will then move to gearing up for delivery.
	In conclusion, we attach great importance to the Thames Valley, Berkshire economy. It is a key part of the UK economy and its wealth creation. We are committed
	to giving areas such as Thames Valley, Berkshire the funding and the freedom they need to maintain their leading position in the UK economy and I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the announcement that we are due to make in July.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.